View the h-german Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-german's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-german's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-german home page.
Two messages... 1. Submitted by: Peter Hoffmann CYPH@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA Gerald Feldman is right. Backbone is the answer. Insurance against the consequences of the exercise of free speech is theoretically and constitutionally the wrong response. On another level, where human nature is particularly weak, insurance is more likely to encourage suits than to discourage them. Peter Hoffmann McGill University 2. Submitted by: Ronald Shearer shearer@Oakland.edu I was trying to explain the current Goldhagen/Birn affair to a colleague of mine in another field recently and found myself confused on a couple points. Perhaps someone on the list could clarify these. 1. If a case were brought in an English court against a Canadian citizen, would that Canadian be legally obligated to retain counsel to represent him/herself in Enland? What international law compels him/her to do so? Is there something here that would only apply legally to the Commonwealth countries? 2. If a Canadian defendant did nothing to represent him/herself in an English case and were convicted of libeling and defaming a plaintiff and assessed monetary penalties, what international law or authority would compel the Canadian to pay damages awarded by an English court? How would the plaintiff make the defendant pay? I found these issues confusing since I am not sure how one can actually implement a strategy in an international context of saddling a defendant with unbearable legal costs. Ronald Shearer Department of History Oakland University shearer@oakland.edu
|