|
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
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|