The deadline for reaching an accord with the government is August 23. More information here.
Category: international
Are Ramadan arrests in Tunisia a sign of tyranny or judicial independence?
Five men have been arrested in two Tunisian cities in recent weeks for breaking the Ramadan fast. Some are calling the arrests a violation of human rights and the imposition of religious tyranny. But John Spacapan of the American Enterprise Institute thinks it might be a positive indicator of judicial independence:
The legal dispute over these arrests arises from a paradox in the Tunisian constitution: while the constitution ensures protection from religious persecution, Article 6 makes the government “the guardian of religion.” Local courts used this clause to justify jail sentences for violating Ramadan. The limit on this kind of action lies, in part, in the Tunisian judiciary and the ability of secularists to appeal the interpretation of Article 6, a path to a precedent-setting ruling by Tunisia’s Supreme Court. In other words, an independent judiciary could be the key to establish the precedent of religious freedom essential to deepen the roots of Tunisia’s democracy.
The full article is an interesting read, and recommended.
Canadian judges cleared of conflict-of-interest charges
Three federal judges in Canada have been cleared of wrongdoing after they attended sponsored social events at an international tax conference in Spain. The Canadian Judicial Council concluded that concerns that the judges’ attendance compromised their impartiality were “unfounded.”
The judges themselves were more sanguine about the signal their attendance might have sent. Judge R.S. Bocock, for example, recused himself from a pending case involving one of the sponsors, even though he was unaware of the conflict at the time he attended the sponsored event. Bocock stated,
“I have reflected on this entire matter….The potential for a conflict of interest in this matter seems remote; however, through inadvertence, the portrayal of a potential conflict, where all the facts are at first unknown, is possible,” said Bocock, in a letter sent to the complainant.
“As such, there are consequences, costs, and reputational risks to the judge, the judiciary and the administration of justice as a whole. Prudence and best practice would suggest that, in future, refraining from attending such off site sponsored conference receptions is a better and wiser choice. I certainly intend to follow this prudent conduct in the future.”
Judges often have to straddle a line on social occasions so as to not appear to favoring a particular party or law firm. The appearance of impartiality is so important that most judges choose to avoid more social events than they rightfully should. But there is no easy solution. Justice Abe Fortas reportedly said that “Judging is a lonely job in which a man is, or near as may be, an island entire.” The phrasing is a bit stiff, but there is plainly some truth to the observation.
Poland passes judicial reform bill, placing EU voting rights in jeopardy
Yesterday, the lower house of the Polish legislature passed a highly controversial reform bill that gives the executive branch enormous power to select and remove judges, including the entire Supreme Court. The Polish senate is expected to approve the bill today, and President Andrzej Duda is expected to sign the bill shortly thereafter.
The bill has drawn criticism from both domestic and international circles, where it is widely seen as a threat to judicial independence and the rule of law. During the parliamentary debate, opposition leader Grzegorz Schetyna accused the ruling Law and Justice Party of “destroying Poles’ right to an independent court … destroying the foundations of freedom, of parliamentary democracy.” Thousands of people rallied against the bill in Warsaw last Monday, and another major protest took place yesterday. Now the European Union is threatening to strip Poland of its voting rights within that organization.
Law and Justice (PiS) has argued that the reforms are needed because the Polish judiciary continues to operate along communist-era lines, and ordinary citizens do not feel that “the system is on their side.” Critics see this justification as a naked power grab which effectively places all three branches of the Polish government under the control of a single party.
When arguments are clothed in the language of populism, it is often difficult to assess their accuracy and sincerity. I have no doubt that the Polish people are still scarred by two generations of communist rule, but a widespread judicial overhaul that consolidates power in the hands of a select few hardly seems like a serious effort to restore the judiciary to the people. This editorial underscores the point.
Still, I welcome anyone with a more intimate knowledge of Polish politics or this particular legislation to offer thoughts on the legislature’s motives in the comments.
More reaction to Poland’s judicial reform
Several news outlets have reported on the protests yesterday regarding the Polish government’s proposed reform of the judiciary. Some examples of coverage can be found here, here, and here.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg News offers up a detailed analysis of the reform proposals here. I cannot speak for the credibility of the author, but it appears to be a useful read.
Populism, politics, and the Polish courts
Several months’ worth of rumblings over the fate of the Polish judiciary came to a head this week when the country’s legislature debated a controversial judicial reform bill. Like the judicial crisis in Ireland that unfolded earlier this summer, the Polish controversy is worth unpacking and monitoring closely.
The reform bill discussed this week was shepherded through the legislature by the Law and Justice (PiS) Party, a populist, conservative party that has been in power since 2015. The bill would give legislators and the Justice Minister the power to appoint new judges without input from the judiciary. It would also create a new code of ethics for the country’s judges. A second bill would require all Supreme Court Justices to resign (unless permitted to stay by the Justice Minister), and new Justices appointed in their stead. The PiS leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has justified the moves by saying that the country’s judiciary had not sufficiently reformed from its communist past, and that “radical changes” were needed.
Opposition leaders and other European observers have painted the bill as a power grab that would compromise judicial independence and threaten the rule of law, and have even asked for international oversight of the vote on the bill. On Sunday, thousands of protesters jammed the streets of Warsaw to protest the legislation.
What should observers make of this?
Continue reading “Populism, politics, and the Polish courts”
A look inside judicial training on sexual assault cases in Canada
Helicopter drops grenades on Venezuelan Supreme Court
A police helicopter dropped four grenades on the Venezuelan Supreme Court building yesterday, and also fired at least 15 shorts at the Interior Ministry, in an apparent attack on President Nicolas Maduro and his supporters. No one was injured.
Earlier this spring, the United States imposed economic sanctions on individual members Venezuela’s Supreme Court for their role in perpetuating Maduro’s illegitimate and catastrophic regime.
Unpacking the latest in the Maire Whelan controversy: proposed judicial appointments bill panned, government at risk
The controversial appointment of Maire Whelan to Ireland’s Court of Appeal continues to ruffle the country’s new government. This week, Transport Minister Shane Ross proposed a bill to create a new Judicial Appointments Commission. The new commission would have a majority of non-lawyer members, and would be chaired by a non-lawyer. The commission would select final nominees, who would then be chosen by the government.
The bill immediately came under fire from Fianna Fail, the political party whose support is necessary to uphold the government’s confidence and supply agreement. The proposal was also publicly criticized by prominent members of the judiciary.
Irish parliamentary debate over Maire Whelan appointment “extremely heated”
This blog has been closely following the appointment of former Irish Attorney General Maire Whelan to that country’s Court of Appeal last week, which has engendered enough controversy to threaten to bring down the new government. Whelan accepted her appointment on Monday, but that hardly ended the matter. On Wednesday night, the Dail (Ireland’s parliament) held a lengthy debate over the propriety of the appointment. According to one story:
A two-hour debate was held in the Dáil to discuss the appointment last night.
It became extremely heated.
New Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan said a new bill was part of the government’s aim of “entirely reforming the judicial appointment system”.
Jim O’Callaghan dismissed the claim that Cabinet confidentiality prevented the answering of essential questions on the matter.
Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald, meanwhile, said that Micheál Martin – who wasn’t present for the debate – had serious questions to answer based on a telephone call he had with the Taoiseach on the matter last Sunday.
She questioned whether Martin attempted to use his influence on the government to prevent Whelan being appointed.
Labour leader Brendan Howlin took aim at the Independent Alliance who, he claimed, “clapped through an appointment that they now oppose”.
Clare Daly said the appointment was legal, but “political”.
Mattie McGrath said “new politics, my foot”.
Sinn Féin’s Jonathan O’Brien got into a war of words with Minister Flanagan, after asking how many others applied for the role.
Today, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was asked if the situation had affected Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil’s confidence and supply arrangement. “Obviously the week that has gone by I don’t think has been helpful for either party,” he said. “But we have a written agreement.”
We’ll continue to watch how this plays out.
The Interdependent Third Branch 