Texas rules up-the-skirt photos are legal in freedom of speech tussle that's not as clear cut as you think.

I've been saying for a geological era that women in the west have a burqa imposed on us. It's just that ours is invisible.

The Texas Court of Appeal ruling legalising up-the-skirt shots — where a perv can thrust his camera up your skirt to take the image for sexual gratification — seems on the surface like another mind-boggling manifestation of how patriarchy rools.

However, sensationalist reports have ignored the genuine concern that, in its current form, the improper photography statute has enough wiggle-room for abuse by the State. It is actually an interesting legal dilemma that requires closer examination than my own initial harrumphing shock-horror allowed. As ever, going back to the source rather than relying on press reports yields nuances that get missed.

The Independent reports:

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled 8-1 to strike down part of a law which bans taking images of another person in public without their consent and with the intention to “arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person”, criticising the “paternalistic” intrusion into peoples’ private right to be aroused.

To stop someone using you as a masturbatory aid is not something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned their First Ammendment, says Sharon Keller (for the judge be a she, sistahs).

"Orwellian thoughtcrime", yelled lawyers for the perp Ronald Thomas, sounding like they never read any Gorgeous George in their lives. (Alexander Pope wasn't wrong when he wrote "a little learning is a dangerous thing".) After an alarming 2011 incident at Sea World in San Antonio, Thomas was found with 73 T & A shots of swimsuited children on his camera but, hey, this is his constitutional right.

In Wednesday's judgement the State argued, defending the improper photography statute in its present form:

The State further contends that the lack-of-consent requirement means that the statute does not apply to a photograph of a person in public as long as the photograph is of an area of that person that was exposed to the public. … any person who appears in public and exposes a certain part of the body to the public has necessarily consented to that part being photographed, and therefore, the improper-photography statute would not apply. But, the State reasons, if the person is not in public, or the photograph is of an area of the person that is not exposed to the public—such as the use of an X-Ray camera that can see through clothing or a photograph taken up a woman’s skirt—then the improper-photography statute would criminalize such behavior if done with the requisite intent [italics mine]. … the statute serves the important government interest of protecting privacy by “protecting individuals from invasive covert photography” and “protecting individuals from having their images unconsensually exploited for the sexual gratifications of others.”

But the defence argued:

... the improper-photography statute prohibits not merely the act of photography but photography with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, and the latter is expressive. ... While the legislature may have a legitimate interest in prohibiting “peeping tom” and “up-skirt” photography, appellant contends that the language of the statute “utterly fails to achieve that interest because it fails to distinguish those situations from merely photographing a girl in a skirt walking down the street.” Appellant argues that the “street photographer, the entertainment reporter, patrons of the arts, attendees to a parade or a pep-rally, [and] even the harmless eccentric are all at risk of incarceration under a plain reading of this statute." … The amicus also states that the statute “covers only those photographs that have the intended primary effect of causing sexual arousal, and it is the content of speech that would cause such arousal.”

It's a bad-faith argument, but the creep has a point in law. Your freedom not to be sexually harassed and violated is trumped by this man's right to expression because the lawyers who wrote the legislation failed to nail it. So now in this corner of the Land of the Free, women and children have choices: you can cover up or you can wear your skirt or swimwear and be considered fair game by male predators.

The judge concluded:

... that photographs and visual recordings are inherently expressive … The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen or paintbrush. Using a camera to create a photograph or video is like applying pen to paper to create a writing or applying brush to canvas to create a painting. … Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or gratification is the regulation of protected thought, and such a regulation is outside the government’s power.

Yet this intimidation is permitted. Consent doesn't come into it as it would if you sat for a painting as "there need not be any actual concurrence of wills between the photographer and the subject or any actual voluntary agreement by the subject to be photographed." Is a direct image of you snapped by a photographic device as artistically valid as a scurrilous cartoon? One has been created in the mind and brought into the world through an act of artistic creation whilst the other is an immediate capture of your actual image in light form. Snapping police in their duty has political validity in a way that photographing your knickered bum clearly does not.

However, the judge says, "A person who walks down a public street cannot prevent others from looking at him or her with sexual thoughts in their heads." Perversely, even though the areas of your body are not on public display, photographing them covertly is legal. "Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of 'paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant’s mind' that the First Amendment was designed to guard against."

Yeah, so let's allow them to enact what's in their minds willy-nilly. The letter of the law is a dead thing if there is no application of the spirit of the law.

However ...

Could it be this which is the problem? The judge says:

The statutory provision at issue is extremely broad, applying to any non-consensual photograph, occurring anywhere, as long as the actor has an intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

Because the act of photographing is not illegal in itself, but is only illegal under the improper photography statute when motivated by sexual gratification, the law is being asked to look into a person's mind, and this, I reckon, is where the difficulty lies. Remember those italics in the State's argument defending the statute? "… if done with the requisite intent"? How on earth do you determine whether or not this is the case?

“Photographs are routinely taken of people in public places, including at public beaches, where bathing suits are also commonly worn, and at concerts, festivals, and sporting events. Taking photographs of people at such venues,” the Court said, “is not unusual, suspicious, or criminal.”

So this may be a case of dangerously worded legislation bashed out in a rush, with the devil being in the detail. Some societies consider a photograph to be theft of the soul. Until this flabby statute is tightened up, in this instance, I fear they may be right.

The appeal against the ruling hinges on whether the camera is a dead machine and photography a technical process not protected by constitutional right. Jury … still out.

The entire population of China sued by New Yorker

The biggest lawsuit ever, TTIP legislation and vulture capitalists.

Anton Purisma, the man suing New York City for more money than there is in the world, has just taken out an action suing Ed Snowden and the entire population of China for the rest of the money that doesn't exist in the entire known universe.

Not content with $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or two undecillion dollars, (which is bigger than a gazillion and MUCH more than a squillion), one of his requests is to play Edward Snowden at poker.

According to a Yahoo report:

Anton Purisima has filed his two undecillion dollar lawsuit after he claims his middle finger was bitten and infected by a "rabies-infected" dog on a city bus, that he paid more for coffee than he should have at LaGuardia Airport and a Chinese couple took pictures of him without asking.

I can't find what it is that the Peoples Republic of China have done to him to deserve their lawsuit but a Chinese couple (or they could have been Korean or Japanese) photographed him in his dog-bitten misery so maybe he holds China responsible. Why not? Everybody else does.

Talking of "does", in his hand-written upper case lawsuit, he includes: "Does (as in "John Does") 1-1.3 BILLION, DEFENDANTS."

Ah, yes, there it is: "Illegal dumping (of 'cheap') & defective 'China-made-and-over-priced products.'"

Before we laugh off the biggest suer in the world, let's not forget the TTIP EU legislation enabling vulture capitalists to sue governments for every penny of debt until they own the world. So far, Anton only wants your money. He doesn't want you in slavery in perpetuity.

Thanks to Adrian Chen for the hat tip on Twitter.

Vincent Chin and Simon San: two murders, same indifference

Vincent Chin and Simon San were born and murdered decades apart on two different continents, but the common factor is the callousness and indifference with which their cases have been dealt with by the investigating police and prosecutors.

Justice is off the menu when it comes to these Chinese deaths. While the police finally admit that an acknowledgment of the racist dimension of Simon's murder by a white mob outside the family-run takeaway in Edinburgh in Scotland would have resulted in stiff sentences, the men have been given 24 months, 26 months and five years for the thug who landed the killer blow that smashed Simon's head against the pavement. As we all know by now, they will walk after serving only a third of that minus remand time. Only one year more than the sentence imposed on the laptop rioters who posted their encouragement of the unrest on Facebook. What is this telling us about values in Britain today?

This insulting sentence echoes the $3,000 fine and three years probation imposed on the white Detroit car-workers, Richard Ebens and Michael Nitz, who beat Vincent Chin to death with a baseball bat in front of witnesses one summer evening in 1982. Out on a bachelor party, Vincent was hunted down before finally being cornered in a McDonalds where he was held by Nitz while Ebens pulped his skull with the bat.

Both killings were preceded by racist epithets. The Wikipedia account says:

Ronald Ebens was arrested and taken into custody at the scene of the murder by two off-duty police officers who had witnessed the beating. Ebens and Nitz were convicted in a county court for manslaughter by Wayne County Circuit Judge Charles Kaufman, after a plea bargain brought the charges down from second-degree murder. They served no jail time, were given three years probation, fined $3,000 and ordered to pay $780 in court costs. In a response letter to protests from American Citizens for Justice, Kaufman said, "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... You don't make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal."

After an appeal and a retrial, Ebens was cleared of all charges despite witnesses including two off-duty cops. The lenient sentences for Ebens and Nitz led to a galvanisation of US Asian Americans who then formed the pan-ethnic Asian American movement that's given the community some clout since Chin's murder. I wonder if San's case will prompt an equivalent marshalling of Asian community forces in Britain.

On Monday 12th September, Amnesty International is screening a film about the case by Curtis Chin: “Vincent Who?”, a documentary on Asian American political empowerment. He'll be part of a Q&A session afterwards, with Paul Hyu (Chinese Elvis) and Col. Brian Kay OBE TD DL, Chairman of Islington Chinese Association.

Asian Pacific Americans for Progress & Islington Chinese Association presents
"Vincent Who?"
Monday, Sept. 12, 2011
7-9 pm
Amnesty International – The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA
Free Admission
Ticket reservations here

Vincent Chin 

The Leith police dismisseth us, but the Lothian community pay their respects in this tribute.

Chinese pranksters and rebels take on rule-flouting officials

So you think you have problems with bureaucrats. Want to know why the authorities in China are so damned heavy-handed? The draconian clamp-down goes hand-in-hand with a contempt for the law from the powerful and privileged. However, it looks to me like the rule-flouters are losing the battle with the jobsworths.

Yep, the peasants are revolting — but the officials are positively repulsive.

You'd think that with all the crap that happened down the ages, China would be a cowed society. But while people do indeed toe the line, there's also this curious phenomenon where, once they've had enough of being pushed around, they let you know it.

Just saw this at The Wall Street Journal

After being pulled over in the Henan Province capital of Zhengzhou for breaking traffic rules and driving with a fake license plate, an official from a nearby county warns a policeman not to “poke your nose in other people’s business” and threatens to have him killed.

Escorted by a police cruiser, a car carrying the mayor of the Hebei Province city of Xingtai hits a 14-year-old student while rushing through a red light. The mayor carries on with his official duties that day instead of going to the hospital to visit the victim, who was left permanently disabled.

Traffic police in Hunan’s Hengdong County brawl with a man they accuse of having illegally installed an umbrella on his motorcycle. A crowd of more than 1,000 onlookers gets so angry over the policemen’s treatment of the motorcyclist, they overturn two police cars in protest. A subsequent government investigation finds the policemen were “simplistic, rough and lacked patience” in enforcing the law.

Policewoman Mao Li in Shanxi’s Hunyuan County is showered with praise online after it’s reported that she regularly tickets county officials whose cars violate traffic rules. In the six months since starting her job, Mao is reported to have handed out 138 tickets to officials in nearly all the county government agencies, including the police department. She also ticketed her aunt, despite her father’s intervention on the aunt’s behalf.

I'm also told that, not only did father of the Great Firewall, Fang Binxing, get hit by a shoe-thrower, there were also eggs in the mix. And demonstrating a healthy prankster pricking of authority, the room he was given to speak for his recent Hubei University lecture, was Room 404 — the number of the online message that tells you a page is unavailable.

Keep it up, chaps.

No police charged in Ian Tomlinson demo death

Yet again a policeman caught on camera abusing the public is let off. Today the CPS ruled that, despite video of the policeman pushing news vendor Ian Tomlinson to the ground and beating him with a truncheon at last year's G20 demonstration in the City (London), there will be no prosecution. Not manslaughter, not assault, nothing.

C4 News quoted Tomlinson's son as saying, "We were fighting a losing battle they were on the policeman's side from the beginning. This guy will be back on the beat."

It's as if, with a string of similar cases of killings and assaults by the police, the government has declared war on the public. They know that the present Tory scorched earth policy of savage cuts in services — where we are being made to pay for the bankers' mess while the rich remain untouched, and where no reputable economist will say that this is justified — will result in protest. We now know what police action to expect.

The Tomlinson case serves as a further warning to us that challenges to the government (this one not even elected by the majority of the electorate) will not be tolerated.

One excuse for today's shock decision is the contradictory conclusions from two pathologists. The first, Dr Freddy Patel, said that Tomlinson's death was caused by a heart attack. It was only when the family called in their own expert that the real cause — abdominal haemorrhage — was revealed.

This is not the first time one of Patel's verdicts has been discredited after he has provided results which have turned out to be favourable to certain parties. In 2004, my friend Valerie Chang lost her brother Richard in what was termed a "suicide" at the Abbey National headquarters following an interrogation by his bosses.

The Chang family state:

Richard Chang, 47, senior risk analyst died tragically at work after a fall of over 80 feet, 13 July 2004 in a suspicious suicide at Abbey National plc headquarters, Euston, London following an interrogation organised by senior directors and conducted by Kroll Associates. The incident happened shortly before Abbey National was taken over by Banco Santander.

The pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel who conducted the post-mortem for Richard Chang is under investigation by the General Medical Council. The Fitness to Practise Panel will inquire into allegations that, whilst working as a Consultant Forensic Pathologist Dr Mohmed Patel’s conduct in carrying our four post mortems was irresponsible and not of the standard expected of a competent Home Office registered forensic pathologist and that in one case his conduct was liable to bring the profession into disrepute.  He is accused of giving "questionable" verdicts on the causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious.

The CPS must have known that Patel is under investigation by the GMC and yet they dragged their heels all this time. Will we be told why?

UPDATE: Harpy Marx reminds me that today is the fifth anniversary of Jean de Menezes's killing by police. The Labour Representation Committee has issued this reaction to the Tomlinson decision. And Harpy carries a press release from INQUEST.

UPDATE 2: Friday 23rd July 2010. Pressure is on Coroner Professor Paul Matthews to stand down from the inquest as it has emerged that, not only did he appoint Dr Freddy Patel at the request of the Metropolitan Police (a not disinterested party at the time), who was already discredited but a safe pair of hands, he also banned the IPPC from attending the post mortem. On top of which, he failed to advise Ian Tomlinson's family of their right to attend or send a representative, or inform them of the date and time of the procedure. See also Advice to charge police officer over Ian Tomlinson death ignored. And Are the Police above the law?

No police charged in Ian Tomlinson demo death

Yet again a policeman caught on camera abusing the public is let off. Today the CPS ruled that, despite video of the policeman pushing news vendor Ian Tomlinson to the ground and beating him with a truncheon at last year's G20 demonstration in the City (London), there will be no prosecution. Not manslaughter, not assault, nothing.

C4 News quoted Tomlinson's son as saying, "We were fighting a losing battle they were on the policeman's side from the beginning. This guy will be back on the beat."

It's as if, with a string of similar cases of killings and assaults by the police, the government has declared war on the public. They know that the present Tory scorched earth policy of savage cuts in services — where we are being made to pay for the bankers' mess while the rich remain untouched, and where no reputable economist will say that this is justified — will result in protest. We now know what police action to expect.

The Tomlinson case serves as a further warning to us that challenges to the government (this one not even elected by the majority of the electorate) will not be tolerated.

One excuse for today's shock decision is the contradictory conclusions from two pathologists. The first, Dr Freddy Patel, said that Tomlinson's death was caused by a heart attack. It was only when the family called in their own expert that the real cause — abdominal haemorrhage — was revealed.

This is not the first time one of Patel's verdicts has been discredited after he has provided results which have turned out to be favourable to certain parties. In 2004, my friend Valerie Chang lost her brother Richard in what was termed a "suicide" at the Abbey National headquarters following an interrogation by his bosses.

The Chang family state:

Richard Chang, 47, senior risk analyst died tragically at work after a fall of over 80 feet, 13 July 2004 in a suspicious suicide at Abbey National plc headquarters, Euston, London following an interrogation organised by senior directors and conducted by Kroll Associates. The incident happened shortly before Abbey National was taken over by Banco Santander.

The pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel who conducted the post-mortem for Richard Chang is under investigation by the General Medical Council. The Fitness to Practise Panel will inquire into allegations that, whilst working as a Consultant Forensic Pathologist Dr Mohmed Patel’s conduct in carrying our four post mortems was irresponsible and not of the standard expected of a competent Home Office registered forensic pathologist and that in one case his conduct was liable to bring the profession into disrepute.  He is accused of giving "questionable" verdicts on the causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious.

The CPS must have known that Patel is under investigation by the GMC and yet they dragged their heels all this time. Will we be told why?

UPDATE: Harpy Marx reminds me that today is the fifth anniversary of Jean de Menezes's killing by police. The Labour Representation Committee has issued this reaction to the Tomlinson decision. And Harpy carries a press release from INQUEST.

UPDATE 2: Friday 23rd July 2010. Pressure is on Coroner Professor Paul Matthews to stand down from the inquest as it has emerged that, not only did he appoint Dr Freddy Patel at the request of the Metropolitan Police (a not disinterested party at the time), who was already discredited but a safe pair of hands, he also banned the IPPC from attending the post mortem. On top of which, he failed to advise Ian Tomlinson's family of their right to attend or send a representative, or inform them of the date and time of the procedure. See also Advice to charge police officer over Ian Tomlinson death ignored. And Are the Police above the law?

China bans evidence gained under torture

Regular readers of this blog probably know I have an expectation that, as China grows more secure, it will loosen up on human rights issues while Britain and the rest in the West will clamp down on dissent. The cultural and social superstructure arises out of the economic base, innit? At some point there will be a crossover and that's when I will seriously consider emigrating. If only they'd have me.

Well, yay for China. Another big step follows hard on the heels of allowing the biggest strike ever this month, which resulted in Honda shutting down its four vehicle plants. No movement was crushed, no-one died and the sky didn't fall.

At long last, China has just banned the use of evidence obtained under torture in the courts. And about time, too. If only America and Britain would follow suit.

The China Daily reported:

"This is the first time that a systematic and clear regulation tells law enforcers that evidence obtained through illegal means is not only illegal but also useless," said Zhao Bingzhi, dean of the law school at Beijing Normal University. "Previously we could only infer from abstract laws that illegal evidence is not allowed. But in reality, in many cases, such evidence was considered valid," he said. "This is big progress, both for the legal system and for better protection of human rights," he said. "It will help reduce the number of executions". Zhao said the new rules will also help change the mindset of law enforcers and reduce torture in interrogation, one of the causes of wrongful sentences.

The longest journey begins with the first step. A few more, please. Like ending the death penalty.

UPDATE: Via B&T. Zhao Zuohai confesses to murder then his "victim" turns up alive after 11 years. A happy ending? Not if you are "touristed". "They are immediately giving him the “seal your mouth” education."

China bans evidence gained under torture

Regular readers of this blog probably know I have an expectation that, as China grows more secure, it will loosen up on human rights issues while Britain and the rest in the West will clamp down on dissent. The cultural and social superstructure arises out of the economic base, innit? At some point there will be a crossover and that's when I will seriously consider emigrating. If only they'd have me.

Well, yay for China. Another big step follows hard on the heels of allowing the biggest strike ever this month, which resulted in Honda shutting down its four vehicle plants. No movement was crushed, no-one died and the sky didn't fall.

At long last, China has just banned the use of evidence obtained under torture in the courts. And about time, too. If only America and Britain would follow suit.

The China Daily reported:

"This is the first time that a systematic and clear regulation tells law enforcers that evidence obtained through illegal means is not only illegal but also useless," said Zhao Bingzhi, dean of the law school at Beijing Normal University. "Previously we could only infer from abstract laws that illegal evidence is not allowed. But in reality, in many cases, such evidence was considered valid," he said. "This is big progress, both for the legal system and for better protection of human rights," he said. "It will help reduce the number of executions". Zhao said the new rules will also help change the mindset of law enforcers and reduce torture in interrogation, one of the causes of wrongful sentences.

The longest journey begins with the first step. A few more, please. Like ending the death penalty.

UPDATE: Via B&T. Zhao Zuohai confesses to murder then his "victim" turns up alive after 11 years. A happy ending? Not if you are "touristed". "They are immediately giving him the “seal your mouth” education."

How the rich stay rich: Baroness Scotland's £6 per hour cleaner

Baroness Scotland

I'm neither in the habit or position, nor have I the disposition, to employ anyone. However, when eleven years ago a fellow leftie found herself even more skint than me, one way to help her out was to offer £20 per week for a four-hour cleaning session at my scruffy flat each week. This represented a large chunk of my dosh but, as she was a single mother facing possible eviction, I thought an emergency redistribution of resources was called for. This was better than a loan or gift as it maintained her sense of pride.

She'd come up with the cleaning idea herself and initially offered to do it for less — I think it was a tenner in those pre-minimum wage days — but that would have changed the relationship to one of exploitation, which was out of the question. As it was, suddenly finding myself in the role of "employer" sat uncomfortably with me, but she insisted she needed the dosh. And so we settled into a tidy home for me and a bit of help for her. In mitigation of the situation, much of these sessions over the next few months was spent talking politics over tea and lunch. And although I couldn't really afford it, I was paying a fiver an hour when the low pay minimum was something like £3.80.

So it's with a wry smile that I learn that Labour peer Baroness Scotland's cleaner, Loloahi Tapui, now imprisoned for overstaying her student visa by four years, was paid a miserly £6 per hour. That's just insulting. I cannot imagine having Pat's income (her real name is the far less lofty Patricia Mawhinney) and paying someone so little.

Although Tapui was yesterday gaoled for a severe eight months, she did at least make £75K off the media through Max Clifford, so perhaps that makes up for being lowballed for her labour by a rich woman.

I was pleased to see that the Baroness who, as Attorney General, was the architect of some draconian anti-immigrant laws, fell foul of her own legislation. Pat was fined £5,000 for neglecting to take copies of Tapui's papers, but I think she should have been fined that sum again for being so bloody mean.

And talking about the people who make our laws, Pat has starred in the Parliamentary expenses scandal, wrongly claiming some £170,000 since 2004. Only ministers with a primary residence outside the capital are entitled to this. Pat has a £2 million house in Chiswick which — last time I checked — was in London.

As the song goes, it's the rich what gets the pleasure, it's the poor what gets the blame. And the gaol term. But at least sometimes they have the savvy to get Max Clifford on board.

EDIT: An hour later, I've been thinking about how the injustice in this case operates on so many levels. I think it blows out of the water the notion that just sticking a woman of colour, whatever her character, into a position of power, somehow rectifies any social imbalance. This was an instance of one non-white woman exploiting another. If I am being ripped off, it makes no odds whether the Fat Cat in question is black, brown, white, yellow or purple. (Like the Chinese communists who said — albeit in an altogether different context — it didn't matter what colour a cat is, as long as it catches mice.) Although some might argue that it adds insult to injury. I suspect this was a cynical box-ticking exercise by Labour, making a mockery of attempts to create a more equitable system. There are high-calibre women of colour out there who are neither Blairite drones, Tory entrepreneurs nor simple careerists: women who know how to make a moral decision. Those who send their children to private schools while preaching left, or who remain cheerleaders for the Iraq war, do NOT count.

How the rich stay rich: Baroness Scotland's £6 per hour cleaner

Baroness Scotland

I'm neither in the habit or position, nor have I the disposition, to employ anyone. However, when eleven years ago a fellow leftie found herself even more skint than me, one way to help her out was to offer £20 per week for a four-hour cleaning session at my scruffy flat each week. This represented a large chunk of my dosh but, as she was a single mother facing possible eviction, I thought an emergency redistribution of resources was called for. This was better than a loan or gift as it maintained her sense of pride.

She'd come up with the cleaning idea herself and initially offered to do it for less — I think it was a tenner in those pre-minimum wage days — but that would have changed the relationship to one of exploitation, which was out of the question. As it was, suddenly finding myself in the role of "employer" sat uncomfortably with me, but she insisted she needed the dosh. And so we settled into a tidy home for me and a bit of help for her. In mitigation of the situation, much of these sessions over the next few months was spent talking politics over tea and lunch. And although I couldn't really afford it, I was paying a fiver an hour when the low pay minimum was something like £3.80.

So it's with a wry smile that I learn that Labour peer Baroness Scotland's cleaner, Loloahi Tapui, now imprisoned for overstaying her student visa by four years, was paid a miserly £6 per hour. That's just insulting. I cannot imagine having Pat's income (her real name is the far less lofty Patricia Mawhinney) and paying someone so little.

Although Tapui was yesterday gaoled for a severe eight months, she did at least make £75K off the media through Max Clifford, so perhaps that makes up for being lowballed for her labour by a rich woman.

I was pleased to see that the Baroness who, as Attorney General, was the architect of some draconian anti-immigrant laws, fell foul of her own legislation. Pat was fined £5,000 for neglecting to take copies of Tapui's papers, but I think she should have been fined that sum again for being so bloody mean.

And talking about the people who make our laws, Pat has starred in the Parliamentary expenses scandal, wrongly claiming some £170,000 since 2004. Only ministers with a primary residence outside the capital are entitled to this. Pat has a £2 million house in Chiswick which — last time I checked — was in London.

As the song goes, it's the rich what gets the pleasure, it's the poor what gets the blame. And the gaol term. But at least sometimes they have the savvy to get Max Clifford on board.

EDIT: An hour later, I've been thinking about how the injustice in this case operates on so many levels. I think it blows out of the water the notion that just sticking a woman of colour, whatever her character, into a position of power, somehow rectifies any social imbalance. This was an instance of one non-white woman exploiting another. If I am being ripped off, it makes no odds whether the Fat Cat in question is black, brown, white, yellow or purple. (Like the Chinese communists who said — albeit in an altogether different context — it didn't matter what colour a cat is, as long as it catches mice.) Although some might argue that it adds insult to injury. I suspect this was a cynical box-ticking exercise by Labour, making a mockery of attempts to create a more equitable system. There are high-calibre women of colour out there who are neither Blairite drones, Tory entrepreneurs nor simple careerists: women who know how to make a moral decision. Those who send their children to private schools while preaching left, or who remain cheerleaders for the Iraq war, do NOT count.

Paul Foot on libel laws and the left

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's what the late Paul Foot had to say on libel laws and the left.

An appeal by Paul Foot on behalf of the socialist bookshop Bookmarks.

This is an appeal to all socialists and free thinkers to contribute to the enormous costs of a case brought against socialists by socialists. In August last year, the editor of Socialist Review, Lindsey German, and Bookmarks Publications, the socialist publisher, got a letter from the well known libel lawyers Peter Carter Ruck and Partners on behalf of their clients Quintin Hoare and Branca Magas.

The letter complained about an article written in 1993 by Alex Callinicos (who also got a letter) and included in the book The Balkans, Nationalism and Imperialism, published in 1999 by Bookmarks. The details of the complaint were spelled out in a statement read in open court recently.

Hoare and Magas complained that one passage in the article meant they were both 'apologists' for Franjo Tudjman and his regime in Croatia. This letter is not concerned with the allegations in the original publication. It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws. The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford.

This history of this case vindicates that tradition. Quintin Hoare and Branca Magas are well known in British left wing circles. From the outset Bookmarks Publications and Lindsey German made no attempt to justify their article. They sought to settle the matter as soon and as cheaply as possible.

After much correspondence they agreed to make a statement in open court apologising for the article and agreeing to pay each of the plaintiffs £1,500. Carter-Ruck's bill for these proceedings is likely to be over £10,000.

This means that the total bill for bringing the action and pursuing it, though it was undefended, is more than three times the payment made to the two people who made the complaint. And this for an item in a book whose total sale at Bookmarks and other bookshops in the year before the complaint was less than 50!

At no stage did Mr Hoare or Ms Magas approach Bookmarks Publications without their lawyers. They went straight to their lawyers, at no expense to themselves, since Carter-Ruck were operating on a "no win, no fee" basis.

Bookmarks Publications is a small left wing publisher with very few funds, all of which go into developing new publications. The publisher, Lindsey German and Alex Callinicos cannot possibly afford these sums. Hence this appeal to anyone in the socialist and labour movement who would like to express their disapproval of pursuing political arguments through the law courts.

Paul Foot

“... It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws. The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford. ... Hence this appeal to anyone in the socialist and labour movement who would like to express their disapproval of pursuing political arguments through the law courts.”

[Quintin Hoare and Branka Magas v Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German and Bookmarks Publications Ltd (Eady J, 6 October 2003)]

Paul Foot on libel laws and the left

Apropos of nothing in particular, here's what the late Paul Foot had to say on libel laws and the left.

An appeal by Paul Foot on behalf of the socialist bookshop Bookmarks.

This is an appeal to all socialists and free thinkers to contribute to the enormous costs of a case brought against socialists by socialists. In August last year, the editor of Socialist Review, Lindsey German, and Bookmarks Publications, the socialist publisher, got a letter from the well known libel lawyers Peter Carter Ruck and Partners on behalf of their clients Quintin Hoare and Branca Magas.

The letter complained about an article written in 1993 by Alex Callinicos (who also got a letter) and included in the book The Balkans, Nationalism and Imperialism, published in 1999 by Bookmarks. The details of the complaint were spelled out in a statement read in open court recently.

Hoare and Magas complained that one passage in the article meant they were both 'apologists' for Franjo Tudjman and his regime in Croatia. This letter is not concerned with the allegations in the original publication. It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws. The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford.

This history of this case vindicates that tradition. Quintin Hoare and Branca Magas are well known in British left wing circles. From the outset Bookmarks Publications and Lindsey German made no attempt to justify their article. They sought to settle the matter as soon and as cheaply as possible.

After much correspondence they agreed to make a statement in open court apologising for the article and agreeing to pay each of the plaintiffs £1,500. Carter-Ruck's bill for these proceedings is likely to be over £10,000.

This means that the total bill for bringing the action and pursuing it, though it was undefended, is more than three times the payment made to the two people who made the complaint. And this for an item in a book whose total sale at Bookmarks and other bookshops in the year before the complaint was less than 50!

At no stage did Mr Hoare or Ms Magas approach Bookmarks Publications without their lawyers. They went straight to their lawyers, at no expense to themselves, since Carter-Ruck were operating on a "no win, no fee" basis.

Bookmarks Publications is a small left wing publisher with very few funds, all of which go into developing new publications. The publisher, Lindsey German and Alex Callinicos cannot possibly afford these sums. Hence this appeal to anyone in the socialist and labour movement who would like to express their disapproval of pursuing political arguments through the law courts.

Paul Foot

“... It has been a long tradition in the labour movement that arguments between socialists should be conducted openly and should not, except in extreme circumstances, be tested in the courts by the libel laws. The reason for this tradition is simple. As soon as lawyers get involved in these arguments, the expense of the action in almost every case far exceeds both any damage done by the libel and anything a socialist publisher or author can possibly afford. ... Hence this appeal to anyone in the socialist and labour movement who would like to express their disapproval of pursuing political arguments through the law courts.”

[Quintin Hoare and Branka Magas v Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German and Bookmarks Publications Ltd (Eady J, 6 October 2003)]

Mrs Bono copyrights the word "nude": "the" and "and" under threat as Stella McCartney sued

Mr and Mrs Bono

The wife of world-famous humanitarian and tax expert Bono is suing Stella McCartney for the use of the word "nude" in her latest perfume, Stella Nude.

Ali Hewson, a charity campaigner or "chugger" as they are sometimes fondly known, had previously named her company "Nude Skincare", rendering "nude", "skin" and "care" off limits to everyone in perpetuity.

Similarly, Nina Ricci presciently bagged "air" and the concept of time when she named her scent, "L'air du temps". Luckily, this was in a foreign language and isn't liable under British law, but French physicists and philosophers have been having a helluva time. Cake enthusiast Marcel Proust was forced to retitle his book which now roughly translates as "The Search for Lost Clocks", although the makers of the TV series "Lost" are keeping an eye on developments.

In Ohio, Mr Walt Furffenhower has filed a claim stating that his grandfather invented the ampersand and the @ sign in 1848, and has threatened a law suit against everyone on the planet with an email address. "A buck apiece'll do me fine," he gummed in his trailer. "First thing ah'll do is git ma teeth fixed."

Unrelated but in the same ballpark, Joel Tenenbaum has been fined $675,000 for uploading 30 music tracks.

Scientists estimate that due to the Linguistics Enclosures Acts, the English language will be rendered "someone else's" by the year 2075.

Mrs Bono copyrights the word "nude": "the" and "and" under threat as Stella McCartney sued

Mr and Mrs Bono

The wife of world-famous humanitarian and tax expert Bono is suing Stella McCartney for the use of the word "nude" in her latest perfume, Stella Nude.

Ali Hewson, a charity campaigner or "chugger" as they are sometimes fondly known, had previously named her company "Nude Skincare", rendering "nude", "skin" and "care" off limits to everyone in perpetuity.

Similarly, Nina Ricci presciently bagged "air" and the concept of time when she named her scent, "L'air du temps". Luckily, this was in a foreign language and isn't liable under British law, but French physicists and philosophers have been having a helluva time. Cake enthusiast Marcel Proust was forced to retitle his book which now roughly translates as "The Search for Lost Clocks", although the makers of the TV series "Lost" are keeping an eye on developments.

In Ohio, Mr Walt Furffenhower has filed a claim stating that his grandfather invented the ampersand and the @ sign in 1848, and has threatened a law suit against everyone on the planet with an email address. "A buck apiece'll do me fine," he gummed in his trailer. "First thing ah'll do is git ma teeth fixed."

Unrelated but in the same ballpark, Joel Tenenbaum has been fined $675,000 for uploading 30 music tracks.

Scientists estimate that due to the Linguistics Enclosures Acts, the English language will be rendered "someone else's" by the year 2075.