MERCI MERCY

We have had a visitor from London in the person of Clare Clifford, seen here on arrival at La Gare du Nord.

Followed by lunch at Chartier, and a little tour around the town.  One small item caught the attention. The name of this restaurant. Its numerous translations made one smile. Sea sea, mer mer, si si, mercy, merci, sea mer etc... I do not know if they serve bouillabaisse, but one would assume if it is on the menu, given the fluidity of the name, that it must contain a great variety of sea creatures to feast upon. The French love their puns, but combining it with English is a measure of their capacity to be inclusive. They have been friendly, welcoming and forthcoming with advice of exhibition, food salons, wine and any variety of matters; however, when meeting a neighbour for the first time, one says "Bonjour, je m'appel Edward et je suis au troisiemme gauche" you get "Enchante, bien venue, bonne journee" but no name is ever attached. It's as if the mentioning of one's name is not heard, or not taken as an indication that it would be nice for names to be exchanged. They readily shake one's hand and say pleasant things, or air kiss cheeks (between 1 and 4 pecks depending on circumstances) but do not give their name. This could make them appear to be standoffish. Indeed I'm sure it does. But is it only the British who volunteer their name? 

Last weekend we had a visit from Ian Jones and Christine Bleathman who came to celebrate Ian's birthday. An evening meal at Bofinger by the Bastille, with various Alsacien delights of choucroute with a variety of accompaniments. Celia was not enthralled but I believe the visitors quite liked it, or at least said the did. I had the Bofinger special choucroute with a variety of pork sausages, all of which were lovely, but then I have the middle European roots which delights in such food. The following night was a night at the Opera. At l'Opera bastille we were treated to some rather beautiful voices giving us Lucia de Lammermoor. The sextet was quite wonderful and greeted with lots of applause and Bravas. Just as the piece was about to start, we were encouraged by the ushers to move forward into the empty expensive seats. A standard procedure it would seem. Very nice and thoughtful.

 

Chi mi frena in tal momento? Chi troncò dell'ira il corso?
Who restrains me at such a moment? Who disrupts the course of anger?  

As to La Philosophie du Droit, the first essay has been achieved. I do not know if it is at all what is wanted,  but it's what being offered up.

It should be noted that David Hume died in 1776 during the first year of the American Revolution which decreed “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” and Adam Smith died in the first year of the French Revolution on the 16^th July 1790 almost exactly one year to the day. That event gave rise to the motto ‘liberté, l'égalité fraternité’ and The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the first two articles of which are:

Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union defines and enshrines in law certain conventions to establish the rule of law for the protection of the supreme dignity and integrity of the individual, that all are subject to the law and that all are equal before the law. There are 54 articles divided into seven titles covering Dignity or the right to life, prohibiting torture, slavery, the death penalty..; Freedom, liberty, personal integrity, privacy, thought, religion, expression…; Equality, equality before the law, prohibiting discrimination based on disability, age, sexual orientation, culture, religion…; Solidarity, working condition, right to work, unfair dismissal..; Citizen’s Rights, right to vote,…; Justice, presumption of innocence, fair trial, etc…; and various general provision of interpretation.

It is clear then, that human beings have progressed to believe in terms of fundamental human rights as matters which are self evident. From a natural disposition to be free and a capacity for empathy, to speak freely, to think freely, to have dignity and respect, arise the conventions of a more enlightened society. There was a time, not so long ago when the convention was that homosexuality was a disease and criminally deviant inappropriate behaviour. We now have same sex marriage. There was a time, again, not so long ago, when the convention was that a wife was her husband’s property, a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife and was allowed to beat her with a stick no thicker that his thumb. There was a time when the convention was that slavery was an established economic reality. Unfortunately there are current societies where these conventions are still held to be true.

Ultimately a human being does understand the concept of justice. Natural feelings of resentment spring up when we feel slighted in some way, or are simply ignored. We feel satisfaction when that slight is redressed. We feel happy or contented when we are taken into account, loved and cared for. Likewise when one feels cheated or put upon, feelings of anxiety and emotional hurt come to the surface. People recognise dishonesty and pain, both physical and mental. These are all natural human emotions, and it is these feelings which well up or subside when we see others going through whatever situation may cause them grief or joy. It is through these emotions that we negotiate our interaction with society. Some are more active than others, more ambitious or industrious, whilst some are more retiring and not so forthcoming. Whatever the inclination our feelings and emotions are very similar to one another. A desire for some recognition and respect for our individuality is a simple request.

Whenever these fundamental feeling have been suppressed or thwarted, whenever people have felt aggrieved by some insult or injustice, wherever people have felt oppression in sufficient numbers there has been revolt. In the main the popular outcry of these revolutions (the historical list goes back to 2730 BC ) has been ‘freedom for the people’ and a demand for ‘people’s rights’. All too frequently there have been groups of individuals who have attempted, and succeeded, throughout the ages to impose particular ‘conventions’ on others. This has led on several occasions to world conflict. The institutionalised racism of the Nazi regime is one of the more dramatic and calamitous instances of a convention of intolerance. Ideas and attitudes as to how things should be done can easily become a convention and then be enacted into law. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were the culmination of a systemic anti Semitism which existed in Middle Europe.

It is not surprising then, that following on from the momentous revelations of the Second World War that matters were taken in hand and a world of jurists were brought together. In 1959, a conference was held in New Delhi in India. A gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers and law professors from over 53 countries round the world, came together as an International Commission of Jurists to discuss “The rule of law in a free society”. We've still a long way to go.

ODD FELLOW 2

This Tuesday evening, I attended my class titled; H.D Thoreau : On the Duty of Civil Disobedience et autres textes. 

It’s stated aims are to offer a continuous reading of the text by H.D Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Each session will be devoted to consideration of a passage to be read, translated and commented upon in French. To this end, students must acquire the English text in the edition mentioned in the bibliography. The objective of the course is to understand the legitimacy of resistance and disobedience in the democratic framework defined by the Declaration of Independence. From the historical-political anchor of the text, the course will seek to identify the relevance of the original American philosophy: transcendentalism.

Part of the system of teaching at Université Paris 1, is the student ‘exposé ’ – a close reading of a text – to the rest of the class. There have been a number of ‘exposé’ during the course. Apart from the translation and discussion of paragraphs from Civil Disobedience, we have had Herman Melville’s Bartleby dealing in the main with the phrase “I would prefer not to”; “On Walden Pond” another Thoreau; Emerson’s “On Self Reliance”, and, for this Tuesday evening, Thoreau’s 4^th July 1854 address on “Slavery in Massachusetts”

During the course of this evenings session, on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States of America was in the process of electing its next President.  I do not know the name of the young man who presented and talked of “Slavery in Massachusetts”, but his efforts, although accompanied by the usual round of applause at the end, was not a great success. He spoke well and gave a good performance. Indeed, his voice was clear and carried. However, there were in my view a few misinterpretation of the meaning of the text. This did not matter as, from my vantage point, he was barely being listened to. A number of students had their laptops open in front of them, giving the appearance of note taking and following the text, at least from the front of the room. From my vantage point, on the back row, I could see a number of screens had nothing whatsoever to do with Thoreau. One student was watching a skiing film, another was doing a bit of on line shopping. I cannot say that I saw much of what others were doing as I was trying to understand what the young man was on about. At least his English pronunciation was a bit better than most. It could easily have been a scene from a Truffaut movie.

So we worked our way through Thoreau’s 4^th of July address followed by a translation and discussion, presented jointly by two young women, of the paragraph concerning Thoreau’s view on the 1850’s American electorate, All the while the current American electorate was making its way to and from the polling booths across the nation, I was confident that Hilary would win the day. I rather looked forward to it. My disappointment in the morning is reflected by the previous blog entry. Unlike the graciousness of President Obama, I cannot congratulate a Trump. It would feel rather like congratulating one of my ex clients for getting away with whatever they were up for in court.  Celia pointed out to me Stevie Wonder’s comment “Electing Trump is like asking me to drive”. How is it that this blind American can see with such clarity what his fellow countrymen cannot? The American is indeed an Odd Fellow.