Court clears Serbia of genocide

Tags: Bosnia Serbia ICJ Genocide Case

After almost 14 years of legal wrangling, the International Court of Justice has within the last few hours announced its verdict on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) case.

The court has found against Bosnia, and cleared Serbia of direct responsibility for the violations of the Genocide Convention of 1948 alleged by Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Serbs during their civil war following the break up of the former Yugoslavia.

The case is being reported as "Court clears Serbia of genocide", but things are a little more complex than a straightforward guilty/not guilty dichotomy. This is a massively complex case, involving issues of state responsibility under international law, questions of whether the Bosnian Serbs were autonomous actors or in fact Serbian state actors, questions of whether the states that arose out of the former Yugoslavia were UN members, had acceded to the Genocide Convention, the UN Treaty, the ICJ treaty etc.

The full text of the verdict has not been released. My initial thoughts are this.

My gut feeling is that the Serbian government did influence the campaign of genocide in Bosnia, but not enough to be considered directly responsible within the terms of the Genocide Convention. I do not yet know whether the Court addressed the issue of Serbia's failure to comply with the obligation to prevent genocide. Because of the resolution of the Bosnian situation, resulting in a unified state, rather than a Bosnian state and an independent Bosnian Serb state, then the Bosnian Serbs cannot be held accountable at the ICJ.

Justice will only be achieved through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. And in order to achieve that, Serbia must stop protecting those from the Bosnian Serb hierarchy who have been accused of genocide and other war crimes.

***UPDATED 12:38***

The judgment has now appeared on the ICJ website. The full judgment is here, and the summary is here. Comments to follow.

Do you know what we need here? More laws!!!

Tags: gun crime unnecessary legislation enforcement

There have been one or two shooting deaths in London recently. Those shot and killed have either been intimately involved in the drug trade and gang culture, or have been unfortunate victims of mistaken identity/innocent bystanders.

3 shooting deaths is hardly a plague, London is hardly "at war", and certainly the populace is not "under siege". We were in far greater danger on July 7 2005, when suicide bombers attacked the transportation infrastructure of the City. And do you know what I was doing, whilst bits of London were being blown up, people were dying, and London was facing its biggest threat since the Blitz?

I was calmly paying my credit card bill, and passing a rent cheque on to my landlord. Because London is a big city. And even 4 suicide bombers in under an hour cannot bring 7 million people to their knees, let alone 3 deaths in a week.

But this is the latest cause célebre in the country, and so politicians are crawling all over each other to propose a solution.

Our illustrious Prime Minister, never one to shy away from introducing new legislation at a drop of a hat, has proposed making membership of gangs illegal. Apparently, this is the only way to tackle the problem of gangs, otherwise there is no way for the police to deal with them.

I beg to differ. We don't need new legislation. If gang members rob, steal, assault, carry illegal weapons, murder and generally run riot, then they are committing unlawful acts for which we have existing criminal laws to deal with.

If they plan to carry out these acts, they are at the very least committing conspiracy to carry out these acts - also a criminal offence. If the purpose of the gang is purely to carry out criminal acts, then the gang is a standing criminal conspiracy.

There are currently sufficient laws to take action. We do not want in laws.

We are wanting in detection and enforcement. We are wanting in the political will to tackle the true causes of gang violence. But who wants to tackle the root causes of violence when you can score cheap political points off your opponents?

Since when did you get healthy?

Tags: running health fitness sponsorship 10K

When I was a boy (and I'll be honest here, right up in to my mid-teens) I was fat.

I wasn't pudgy, I wasn't chubby, I was fat. Unhealthy fat.

Then by my mid-teens, probably due to the growth spurt I had, I lost a lot of weight. I was tall, I was skinny, and then I started to play basketball. A lot.

By the time I left high school, I was 6ft3, 168lb with a BMI of 21.03, at the lower end of the healthy scale. And, according to tests undertaken with Strathclyde Police Force, I had 4% body fat, and needed to consume 4500 calories per day just to stay alive. To put this in perspective, a person with a normal lifestyle should consume approximately 2500 calories. So I was effectively needing to eat twice as much as a normal person to avoid dramatic weight loss, loss of energy, or serious detriment to health. At this point in my life I was playing basketball about 5 times per week for up to 6 hours per day, so it's understandable that I would need as many calories.

Then I left high school. And I stopped playing basketball. But my body still needed those calories.

My first year at university was fine, as I still played sports. I had given up basketball and switched, for a while, to American Football. When I gave that up, I kept going to the gym. But then I gave that up.

Still needed those calories. I didn't really notice what it was doing to me. I didn't notice the fact that 32 inch waist trousers that used to be really loose on me no longer fitted me. That my waist size kept increasing.

What it took was a trip to the doctors when I went to Cambridge. I was changing GP, so for the first time in years I was having a health assessment. And got the bad news. I weighed 238lb. To put that in perspective, that gave me a BMI of 29.79. If your BMI is 30 you are clinically obese. I was advised to lose weight. Sooner, rather than later. I was shocked.

So I joined the gym at Cambridge, and kept it up in Ealing, then when I returned to Paisley. I got down to 182lb, a healthy weight for a man of my age and height.

I've relapsed in recent years, mainly due to not going to the gym. On honeymoon I put on a stone due to the huge fatty portions of food that you can get in the States. There are pictures of me on honeymoon that I don't like looking at, because I can see the weight gain, and it actually disgusts me. When we came back I was 217lb, not the heaviest I've been, but not healthy either.

But since the new year I've actually been doing proper exercise again, and eating healthily. The weight is coming off. I now weigh 206lb, and dropping. I'm lifting weights, jogging, eating more vegetables, less fats, less processed foods. And I feel and look the better for it.

So what is the point of all this rambling (you see, I always have an ulterior motive)?

I'm really getting in to running, and in September of this year I would like to take part in my first proper race. Providing it is happening again this year, I would like to do the Nike Run London 10k.

And since others might as well get the benefit of me running myself ragged, I will be asking people to sponsor me for charity. Now, I'm not asking you to send me money, not yet. When the time comes, I will set up a sponsorship site.

No, at the moment, I would like ideas of what to run for - what charity, cause or event should benefit? If you want to make a suggestion, please add a comment at the end of this post. At the moment, front runners from my personal interests are Amnesty International, the United Nations Association Trust, and Avocats sans Frontières. But I will not reject other suggestions, and may decide to split any sponsorship across more than one cause.

Moving on...

There's going to be a bit of upheaval on my site now.

As you can tell, this blog is now being produced by the good people of Blogger, rather than through my iWeb software. The primary purpose of this move was that I was tired of having ideas for a blog entry, and then having to wait upwards of ten hours to get access to my computer to write it, then wait for the various html files to sync, reload, then do multiple post-publishing tricks to the html. Too much hassle for my liking.

So I have moved to Blogger, so I can blog what I like, when I like. The only unfortunate side effect is that I have lost all the comments from my blog. I'll investigate to see if they can be moved over, but I doubt it...

There is also another reason. Very shortly I will be moving to a new domain. Gone will be my old web.mac.com address, and instead you will be looking at this blog on my new domain www.paulanthonyanderson.com! I feel like such a grown up.

Also changing will be my legal site, which will now be hosted on www.paulanderson.org.uk - I'll send out e-mails to the many tens of people who care about this kind of thing...

Don't pussy around this hoo-haa

Tags: hysterical reactions anatomically correct words

Women have a vagina. Men have a penis.

As we’re all grown ups, we can say these words without getting giggly, without getting offended, without feeling the need to censor ourselves. Unless you are so ridiculously prudish and sheltered, that even the correct anatomical terms mortify you. So let’s get the embarrassment out of the way.

Penis. Vagina. Testicles. Vulva. Clitoris. Scrotum. Labia. Perineum.

To the vast majority of humanity, these are parts of the anatomy. Like the kidneys. The liver. The lungs. The cornea.

If your son, or daughter, or niece, or nephew, asks you what a penis or a vagina is, then do the kindness of explaining to them what they are. Just as you would if they asked what kidneys are. Or lungs. After all, your four year old daughter has a vagina. Your five year old son has a penis. It’s not naughty. It’s not rude. And it’s certainly not evil.

...

Unless you are a repressed prude living in Florida. In which case the only thing more offensive than your niece asking you what a vagina is, would be her drawing pictures of Jesus having a threeway with Dubya and Ronnie Reagan.

What a slutty little hussy that poor woman’s niece must be. Imagine, having knowledge of the correct term for a part of her own anatomy. Scandalous.

Which impure, evil paedophile put such blasphemous thoughts into this innocent child’s head? That would be a poster for the critically acclaimed The Vagina Monologues. Eve Ensler’s play was being staged at The Atlantic Theatre in Atlantic Beach, Florida. The niece, of unknown age, asked her aunt what a vagina is. Rather than being congratulated for being able to read (I am assuming the child is quite young, from the general tone of the news reports), rather than taking the time to actually answer the child’s question, an alleged adult was offended at the word. And complained to the theatre. Who have now changed the name of the play to The Hoohaa Monologues.

Because playground slang is FAR preferable to adult language (and I mean that in the grown up, not the sexual sense). What next? The Pussy Monologues? The Fanny Monologues? The Cunt Monologues? The play is not suitable for a child, but the WORD is one a child should be aware of.

Doubtless the child had to ask, because it is a word that the child has never come across in her home life. If her aunt’s example is anything to go by, she’s probably been brought up in a very repressed, very WASP-ish, American fundamentalist Protestant household, where sex is dirty, and if you enjoy it you are a harlot. From the aunt’s horrified reaction, the child will now learn that "vagina" is an evil, dirty word. God help her if she needs medical attention in the future. "Doctor, I have a boo-boo on my hoo-haa..."

I am a firm believer that you should explain things to children. You may wish to tailor the explanation to their level of understanding (simplify, don’t lie) but you do a disservice by failing to answer, and worse if you treat the very asking like some kind of crime.

I did NOT just see that...

Tags: Muhsin Muhammad Superbowl

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a HUGE American football fan. Today is Super Sunday, the grand finale to the season. Right now, I am watching the Chicago Bears take on the Indianapolis Colts in Superbowl XLI in a rather wet Miami.

Now, I’m not a particular fan of either team. I don’t dislike them (like, say, the Dallas Cowboys) nor am I fan (like, say, the San Francisco 49ers). So I have no vested interest in either team.

Back to my blog title. What do I not believe I just saw? Certainly not the 92 yard opening kick-off return by Devin Hester (I believe that is the fastest score in Superbowl history).

Nor is it the bizarre decision by the Colts to attempt a two-point conversion after scoring on their next drive to tie.

Nor is it the bizarre circumstances of Chicago fumbling the subsequent kick-off, Indianapolis recovering, then themselves fumbling on the next play for Chicago to recover and then with the very NEXT play get down to the 5-yard line (damn this Superbowl is turning out to be more exciting than I thought!).

No, what I cannot believe was the coin toss. The team captains from each side lined up, were introduced, and were cheered by the crowd. Except one. Muhsin Muhammad.

That’s right. The "Muslim sounding one". He didn’t get cheered. He got booed.

What. The. Fuck.

And the man has just caught a pass for the Bears second touchdown. And the crowd are jeering AGAIN!

The Superbowl is watched by a global audience of close to 1 billion people. It represents America to the world. This athlete has been elected by his peers to be a team captain, has led his team to the Championship, and has just caught, under tight coverage, a fine touchdown pass. And the crowd have jeered again.

So, because he has an "Islamic" name, you can’t even appreciate his performance?

*Updated 5 Feb 07 @ 00:23

OK, having dug around on the web a bit, it appears that Muhsin’s nickname is “Moose”. It is possible that the crowd are shouting “Mooooooose” and showing their support, not jeering him.

I sincerely hope that it is the latter, and not what I initially thought.

Star Wars

Tags: China outer space weapons USA missile defence shield

Well this is a turn up for the books. It seems that the Chinese government have called for an international treaty barring weapons from outer space. This would be the same Chinese government that used a ballistic missile to blow up a weather satellite in the middle of January this year.

What next? The Bush administration calling for international treaties barring the mistreatment of detainees captured during armed conflict? (Just imagine, you could call them the Geneva Conventions...)

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr Liu Jianchao has been quoted as saying "China advocates the peaceful use of space and opposes the weaponisation of space, and also opposes any form of arms race." And, to give the Chinese government its due, they aren’t actually transporting missile systems into space, or deploying armed "killer" satellites. This missile was a ground launched missile, that destroyed a satellite in, presumably, a low orbit.

Such a test does however perform a nice bit of sabre rattling. Firstly, it says don’t bother trying to spy on us, we can shoot down your satellites. Secondly, the ability of Chinese ground launched missiles to destroy orbital objects does somewhat put a damper on the US "missile defence shield" project. Whilst orbital missile detection systems might spot a missile heading towards your country, and direct interceptor missiles to stop it, the detection system might not be able to spot the narrow trajectory of a missile heading straight towards it. And a detection system will not work at all if all the detectors have been destroyed.

Not that I am suggesting that the Chinese would use this against the Americans, but the Russians have already proven nervous about the US extending the missile defence shield over former Soviet states - they may wish to invest in a counter measure, not for use, but just to remind the US that they should not be taken for granted.

Regardless, by proving that they can destroy objects in near-Earth orbit, the Chinese have shown that the Americans are not the only ones who can assert a right to deny an adversary access to space. It seems that the end of the Cold War did not end the Space Race, and we’re witnessing a new, vigorous expansion into outer space, one whose uses may not, despite the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, be entirely peaceful.