Turkish Law and Human Rights

Having visited Turkey this past December to see firsthand a country at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, I read with great interest in today's NY Times an article about the Turkish government’s recent decision to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves in universities. The article describes the standoff between traditional Islam and modern secularism, a tension that was strikingly evident in cities like Istanbul and Izmir—and to an even greater degree in smaller cities like Konya and Bursa where I traveled last month.

Since its founding as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism which has moderated the influence of Islam in the political sector. With Turkey seeking full membership in the European Union, heated controversy has flared about key human rights principles that Turkey's government treats differently from most other liberal democracies. Turkish laws restricting Islamic women from wearing head scarves in state-run universities pose a challenge to traditional Islam by mandating secular practices. The issue presents to Westerners an alternate view of what individual freedom means and many Westerners are often unable to reconcile their own notions of tolerance of religious expression in the context of Islam.

Another human rights issue involving Turkey is discussed in a report in Tuesday’s Chronicle of Higher Education. It involves a Turkish professor who was recently given a suspended prison sentence after being found guilty of insulting the memory of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish secular republic. Prosecutors had sought a five-year prison sentence. The professor was charged under a measure that makes it a crime to insult in public the memory of Atatürk. The Chronicle reported that a court in Izmir found that the professor had insulted Ataturk's memory in comments he made last year while serving on a panel on the subject of Turkey’s bid to join the European Union. The professor had questioned his country’s political progressiveness and remarked that many Europeans would ask why there were so many statues and photographs of Ataturk in Turkey. The professor denied the charges that he had insulted Ataturk and argued that academics must have freedom of speech.

It is fascinating—and ironic—to notice how restrictions on freedom of speech can originate from both religious and secular fundamentalists. The principles being tested in Turkey may seem distant to American observers; but given the increased role of religious thought in our own political process, we might benefit from careful attention to this debate.

Sources: New York Times, For Many Turks, Head Scarf’s Return Aids Religion and Democracy, dated January 30, 2008
Chronicle of Higher Education, Turkish Professor Gets Suspended Sentence for Insulting Nation's Founder by Aisha Labi, dated January 29, 2008

Seminar Paper Workshop

Each semester, members of the library staff work with Professor Fajans to present a program to help students select, develop, and write an A quality paper for their seminars. This semester, the program will be held in Room 503 at 4 pm. The research portion of the workshop takes place from 4 to 5 and Professor Fajans lectures on writing tips and style for the second half of the program.
In our portion of the program, we always offer these tips:

1. Evaluate the time you have to devote to your paper. If you are working, carrying a heavy credit load, have parently obligations, etc., you may not want to choose a topic that will require you to visit an outside library for materials. For example, if you want to write about the economic impact of trade regulation on foreign investment, you may need access to a business library for analytical materials that focus mainly on finance. In that case, you may prefer to write a paper about a new case or circuit court split. We can be quite sure that you will have access to most of your materials online if you choose this sort of paper.
2. Try to focus your topic to a defined issue. Selecting an area - even a discreet area - of law to write about is unproductive. You must select and define an issue within a legal topic. For example, you might want to write about human trafficking; however, this topic is too vague. You will need to learn a little bit more about the legal topic before you define your legal issue. In this example, you might focus on effective tactics to counter trafficking, or focus on child trafficking from a specific region.
3. Pick a topic that will interest you. You should find something in which you have a natural interest, or is of such general interest that it is regularly reported on in the trade press. It is very rewarding to be writing about current legal issues.
4. The process: You should start by picking a topic that interests you. We recommend reviewing periodicals and web databases that organize legal news by topic. Then, we encourage you to set up tracking services to alert you should there be a new case, new development, new law, etc... To help you define your issue, you should review books and law review articles. Commentary will really help you learn the lingo and teach you the law.
5. Most important: If you are not sure how to research your topic, make an appointment with a librarian or stop by the reference desk in the library. This is what we do.

The library has posted its slide presentation, bibliography, and a list of the links we visited during the workshop. You can find them on our del.icio.us account at http://del.icio.us/library.cat

Episode 013 - Conversation with Professor Norman Poser

Episode 013 - Conversation with Professor Norman Poser.mp3

Brooklyn Law School's own Professor Norman Poser talks about his recent book, "Escape: A Jewish Scandinavian Family in the Second World War." The book chronicles a little-known episode of the Holocaust, the fate of the Norwegian Jews and the heroic efforts of the Danish Consul-General in Oslo to save the Danish Jews living in Norway, including members of Professor Poser's family. The book also relates how other family members of Professor Poser escaped from Nazi-occupied Denmark to Sweden.


Professor Poser will be giving a talk about these events at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 31, at the Jewish Community Center, 334 Amsterdam Ave. at 76th Street. The program is co-sponsored by the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and the Consul General of Denmark in New York.

1L Grades Are In -- Should You Quit Law School?

Question: I am a first-year law student at a fourth-tier regional law school and I got my grades about a week ago. They were below average for my class, and I have been very depressed lately. ... How do I evaluate whether I should drop out of law school and do something entirely different? I really want to be a lawyer, but I don't want to do it if I'm not going to be any good at it. Any ideas?

Answer: Some people are better suited to being lawyers than law students. You may be one of them. [Ouch.]

The first year of law school presents a difficult challenge for many students. You are learning new concepts and a new way of thinking. Some students "get it" sooner than others. Sometimes it takes a semester or two, or possibly more, to figure out how to approach legal issues. In a few cases, law is not the right career choice.

Consider whether you like the law, without letting your grades taint your assessment. ... Similarly, separate your grades from your comprehension of the course material. ...Ask yourself whether you possess the skills and characteristics that lead to success in the practice of law. ...
Do not make a hasty decision to drop out of law school. Take time for self-assessment. Explore your options. Benefit from the help that is available to you.

Source: New York Lawyer

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,

In an interesting 5-4 ruling yesterday on statutory interpretation, the US Supreme Court held that an exception to the Federal Torts Claim Act that grants immunity to "any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer" applies to "all law enforcement officers." Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, ruled that law enforcement officers who steal prisoners' personal property while engaged in their official duties are immune from lawsuits brought by prison inmates. The Court split 5-4, with Justice Thomas authoring the majority opinion joined by Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy wrote the main dissent, joined by Stevens, Souter and Breyer.

The New York Times in an article by Linda Greenhouse noted the unusual line-up of Justices as well the Court's internal disagreement regarding how to engage in statutory interpretation. The article highlighted Justice Kennedy's dissenting opinion, in which he wrote "the Court’s analysis cannot be squared with the longstanding recognition that a single word must not be read in isolation but instead defined by reference to its statutory context."

At issue was the meaning of the phrase “any other law enforcement officer.” Did Congress mean to confer blanket immunity for property-related offenses on the part of any federal law enforcement officer? Or was the immunity limited to officers engaged in tax or customs work? The answer was sufficiently ambiguous that of the 11 federal circuits of appeals to address the issue, six had interpreted the exception as applying broadly to all officers, and five had read it narrowly to apply only to property seizures connected to revenue or customs enforcement

Court Reinstates Election Rules for New York Judges

In New York State Board of Elections v. Torres, the US Supreme Court today reinstated New York's method for selecting Democratic and Republican judicial candidates, saying the decades-old approach doesn't violate the constitutional rights of voters or would-be candidates. The justices voted unanimously to uphold the system, under which voters choose delegates to attend conventions where the trial-court nominees are selected. A federal appeals court said the system gives too much power to party leaders at the expense of so-called insurgent candidates.

"None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Scalia’s opinion was joined by six members of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens joined the opinion but also wrote separately, joined by Justice David H. Souter, to stress that the Court was not ruling on the wisdom of New York’s approach. “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws,” Stevens wrote. Kennedy wrote separately, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, to raise questions about the wisdom of picking judges by popular election. “The persisting question,” Kennedy wrote, “is whether that process is consistent with the preception and the reality of judicial independence and judicial excellence.”

The New York system, unique in the nation, has been in place since 1921. It was challenged by a group of Democratic and Republican voters and judicial candidates. The Democratic and Republican parties supported the New York system. A federal trial judge said the rules were unconstitutional and ordered the state to shift to a primary system until it could overhaul its convention procedures. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York then upheld that ruling.

Source: Bloomberg, U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates New York Election Rules by Greg Stohr, January 16, 2008

See also SCOTUSBLOG, by Lyle Denniston, January 16, 2008

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola

In Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola, the US Supreme Court handed a win to third-party defendants — including law firms, accountants and bankers — in securities fraud litigation.

The 5-3 ruling written by Justice Kennedy held that the private right of action by investors against companies allowed by Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not extend to third-party vendors and others if investors did not rely on their statements or representations. The ruling demonstrated the Court’s distaste for class-actions, with Kennedy stating that expanding causes of action in securities litigation would damage the economy and "would allow plaintiffs with weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies." Kennedy warned, however, that third parties with unclean hands are subject to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other kinds of civil litigation. The decision will likely have a direct impact on the litigation surrounding the Enron collapse.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Stevens criticized the majority's "mistaken hostility towards the 10(b) private cause of action." He invoked the old common law rule that "every wrong shall have a remedy." and even cited a 1980 Second Circuit decision, Leist v. Simplot (638 F.2d 283), written by Judge Henry Friendly during the year that Roberts, now chief justice, clerked for Friendly. In that decision Friendly reviewed the history of implied causes of action in securities and other laws.

Source: New York Law Journal, Third Parties Shielded From Securities Suits, By Tony Mauro
January 16, 2008