Avatar is James Cameron's first project since the decade-old Titanic. Whereas Titanic was a megahit because it touched a hundred million teeny-bopper hearts (thus being one of the great 'chick-flicks' of all time) Avatar is far more hard-nosed. Superficially it is about a much-improved 3D technology ('cinema will never be the same') but underneath that gloss Cameron makes a thinly-disguised assault on American neo-imperialism shown most nakedly in the takeover of Iraq but which has had catastrophic impacts on dozens of nations around the globe, as documented by the likes of Noam Chomsky.
The word 'avatar' comes from East Indian mythology, in which divinity 'becomes flesh' from time to time, to destroy the forces of unrighteousness. And consequently the resonances with American history are clear - the military commander's contemptuous reference to the Navi people of Pandora whose planet is being colonized for resources as 'savages' (and later - monkeys) mirrors America's destruction of millions of native Americans from whom the continent was wrested; and alludes to similar racial policies in Asia. The use of gas (chemical weapons) to drive the Navi away from lands where the resource is located mirrors the use of similar weapons in Colombia to displace nearly 3 million people.
The conflict between the scientist (Sigourney Weaver) who finds Pandora's trees and ecology have a living and precious intelligence to be preserved and studied, and the colonizing force who simply bulldoze the trees that provide a spiritual haven for the Navi, mirrors the present divide on Earth on the environmental question.
In the movie the would-be colonizers are defeated. When arrows shot from a seemingly primitive Navi bow penetrate the brutal heart of the military commander to whom the Navi are a pestilence to be crushed, it seems Cameron wants to herald the end of American empire......
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Letter to the National Post on judicial abuse of power
The Post's article (by Mr. Jacob Ziegel of the law faculty at the University of Toront0) in December 14's edition on 'muzzled lawyers' raises an important and troubling issue – the abuse of authority by Canadian judges. Regrettably though, the quote highlighted in the center of the article (“Legal professionals may be the wrong people to trust with protecting freedom of speech”), though technically correct as Law Societies inflicted the punishments, 'muzzles' the real target of the article, which is not lawyers, but judges. Mr. Ziegel however correctly remarks that freedom of speech, in theory guaranteed by the Charter, is in jeopardy by the very people – judges – who should be committed to its protection.
Both cases cited in the article deal with lawyers whose punishments for expressing criticism of judges were upheld by higher level judges at the Nova Scotia and Manitoba Courts of Appeal. Mr. Ziegel writes 'Surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refused leave to appeal' the Manitoba Court's decision which 'found that derogatory remarks about a judge were not part of the core values protected by the Charter ' (italics added). I am not surprised. This extraordinary finding, with which the SCC implicitly concurred, speaks volumes about the nature of judicial power and way judges (including our top-most ones) view themselves. Clearly judges see themselves beyond the law – above it, as it were. Core values protected by the Charter do not include the freedom to criticise judges? Justice is in this arrogant view brought into disrepute when a judge is criticised, but not when injustices are meted out by judges, which is hardly infrequently, as more and more cases of wrongful convictions emerge.
When coupled with the historical immunity judges gave themselves – immunity from suit for wrongful decisions, euphemistically called 'errors' by a legal system coerced into deference and fear – these matters constitute an odious double-standard which 21st century democracy must not tolerate. The 2 cases mentioned were in themselves comparatively minor. Every instance of 'miscarriage' of justice, and some deserve to be called abortions – has resulted in catastrophic harm to innocent individuals with no accountability for the judges responsible. And so far the legal system has not even begun to identify abortions of justice in the civil domain.
Both cases cited in the article deal with lawyers whose punishments for expressing criticism of judges were upheld by higher level judges at the Nova Scotia and Manitoba Courts of Appeal. Mr. Ziegel writes 'Surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refused leave to appeal' the Manitoba Court's decision which 'found that derogatory remarks about a judge were not part of the core values protected by the Charter ' (italics added). I am not surprised. This extraordinary finding, with which the SCC implicitly concurred, speaks volumes about the nature of judicial power and way judges (including our top-most ones) view themselves. Clearly judges see themselves beyond the law – above it, as it were. Core values protected by the Charter do not include the freedom to criticise judges? Justice is in this arrogant view brought into disrepute when a judge is criticised, but not when injustices are meted out by judges, which is hardly infrequently, as more and more cases of wrongful convictions emerge.
When coupled with the historical immunity judges gave themselves – immunity from suit for wrongful decisions, euphemistically called 'errors' by a legal system coerced into deference and fear – these matters constitute an odious double-standard which 21st century democracy must not tolerate. The 2 cases mentioned were in themselves comparatively minor. Every instance of 'miscarriage' of justice, and some deserve to be called abortions – has resulted in catastrophic harm to innocent individuals with no accountability for the judges responsible. And so far the legal system has not even begun to identify abortions of justice in the civil domain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)