Opposition to America, but not much solidarity with China
A military gerontocracy of Cold Warriors, tries to stir up popular chauvinism with sabre-rattling. Meanwhile in China the victims of America's latest re-run suffer the consequences of the militarisation of East Asia. US president George W Bush is trying to re-enervate the old republican majority by provoking conflict with the Chinese. Unimpressed with the US state departments inalienable right to send spy planes to read their citizens' e-mails, the Chinese detained one crew until Bush grudgingly said he was 'very sorry' (only to take it back again). Under the law of either country, the Chinese would have been within their rights to try the spy plane crew for espionage, a crime that carries the death penalty.
At the same time the US was being pilloried across Europe, with calls for a boycott of Coca-cola, open contempt expressed for the US president in the European press, and barely veiled attacks from European leaders. Sadly this wave of anti-American sentiment was wholly unrelated to the militarisation of the South China Sea. In fact anti-Chinese sentiment in Europe is so high that the British government even managed to blame the Foot and Mouth epidemic on Chinese restaurants. Europe's hostility is not so much to the American president as to the American people, whom dowdy Europeans like portray as gauche and greedy, if not downright obese. Not solidarity with China but the demand that the American people consume less motivates the European campaign against the US. In particular Europeans want the America to burn less oil in observation of the limitations on CO2 emissions set by Kyoto, and now ignored by president Bush. Nothing more than European chauvinism motivates the current spate of US-bashing.
Contempt of jury
Lawyers have denounced Home Secretary Jack Straw's recent attempts to introduce new laws limiting the right to trial by jury for abolishing an 'ancient' and fundamental right to be tried by one's peers. But the spectacular collapse of the trial of the Leeds footballers exposes just how limited is the confidence already placed in the jury by the existing procedures of English criminal law.
Mr Justice Poole halted the trial of football stars Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer for an attack on student Sarfraz Najeib after the Sunday Mirror published an interview with Mr Najeib's father in which he claimed the attack had been racially motivated. Media pundits were dumbfounded that just hours before the jury was due to return its verdict the Sunday Mirror published such an article, breaking 'one of the first rules of journalism'. Little surprise was expressed that the judge thought that the article created 'a substantial risk of prejudice' to the fairness of the trial.
But why does it necessarily prejudice the deliberations of the jury if they read an article containing the opinions of the father of the alleged victim? The judge had already explained to the jury that the prosecution did not claim that the attack was racially motivated and that they were not to consider race as a factor. In a society as sensitive to racial difference as ours, this would have been a difficult thing for the jury to do, no doubt. But a jury which is truly trusted to act as the tribunal of fact must consciously assimilate both the prejudices surrounding an alleged offence (whatever their source), and the lack of relevance of these prejudices, the better to clarify and focus its deliberation on the relevant facts presented in court.
When Justice Poole decided that the jury was not capable of identifying and distinguishing between the published opinions of the Mr Najeib's father and the evidence presented in court he showed contempt not just for the 12 men and women in Hull but for the very principle of jury trial. And this contempt lies at the heart of legal restrictions on press reporting. Like all restrictions on freedom of expression, the contempt of court rules invoked by Justice Poole reveal an underlying lack of faith in the judgement and discrimination of ordinary people, a scepticism, which is shared by many defence lawyers. This scepticism is the solid ground upon which Jack Straw builds his attack upon jury trial.
-- James Heartfield