Interstellar Intimacies

The Star Trek universe, whether on television or film has fascinated viewers for decades now. More than just a medium of entertainment, its themes have striking resonance for those studying international law and international relations (see the sources section below). The most recent addition to the science fiction enterprise (no pun intended) is the recent film, simply titled, Star Trek. In addition to exploring (legal) issues related to torture and genocide (as my Jurisculture partner in crime Alexandra examined in her posting "Genocidal Trek" from earlier this year) this film focuses, in part, on the origins of the characters from the original 1960s television series that made the Star Trek industry famous. In so doing, it draws attention to themes that made the original Star Trek series so revolutionary for its time - the breaking of socially-constructed boundaries.

In tracing the origins of one of Star Trek's leading characters, Spock, the film touches upon issues of discrimination and ostracism experienced by individuals of mixed racial parentage. Spock, as many are surely aware, is the progeny of a Vulcan father, Sarek, and a human mother, Amanda. Although a bi-racial child, in the literal sense, Spock is raised (culturally) in the Vulcan way - that is, he is raised to subordinate all personal emotions and subjective feelings to the demands of logic and scientific thinking.

While culturally and by all appearances Vulcan, a young Spock is shown being taunted and ostracized by fellow Vulcan students on account of his mixed parentage, and particularly for being the son of a human mother. Spock gives into his emotions and attacks one of his peers who insults his mother. From the Vulcan perspective, humans are largely derided as emotional, intemperate, undisciplined and most sinfully, illogical beings. This explicit prejudice follows Spock throughout his life. During an assembly where he is granted admission into the Vulcan Science Academy (considered a rather prestigious honour for Vulcans), Spock is given a backhanded compliment by a high official about his ability to succeed notwithstanding his biological deficit. Consequently, Spock declines the offer of admission and instead opts for a seat in Starfleet Academy, situated in San Francisco.

Interestingly, while Spock is derided by his fellow Vulcans as being too human, and not Vulcan enough, he is similarly not fully at ease amongst his human counterparts, except with perhaps cadet Uhura. Indeed, amongst humans and his Starfleet colleagues, Spock identifies himself and is identified as a Vulcan, rather than as biracial. This is usually raised by the emotional and antagonistic Dr. Leonard McCoy who has in previous films and the television series referred to Spock as inhuman, replete with references to Spock's pointy Vulcan ears.

Spock's challenge as a bi-racial child to navigate between two worlds that do not completely accept him is something that many bi-racial children experience today. There are challenges to navigating between two different normative structures each replete with their own set of values and expectations for individuals within their respective systems. Although there are probably few countries that formally prohibit interracial relationships as a matter of state law, there is still a tremendous degree of resistance by members of different civil societies across the world toward such relationships.

This resistance can even impact upon the decisions of legal actors. One need only recall a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who, this past summer, refused to marry an interracial couple on the basis that he was concerned about the effect that such a relationship would have on the couple's prospective offspring and their acceptance in a racialized society. While the Justice certainly had no legal right to abstain from performing the marriage on this ground, his belief is not completely unfounded as there are certainly parents and families who still evidence significant resistance towards one of their own marrying someone outside of their particular ethnic, class, linguistic and caste group. This isn't to suggest that such barriers and resistance shouldn't be broken or challenged, merely that such resistance is palpable and needs to be addressed. The Justice's decision should have been geared toward confronting those barriers rather than succumbing to them.

But returning to Spock's narrative and its relevance to interracial relationships in our time(s) and place(s) speaks to something far from anachronistic, not only in North America (the cultural backdrop for the creators and writers of Star Trek), but around the world. It speaks to some rather powerful and pervasive non-state legal orders that can have an impact on the decision of interracial couples (or couples who cross distinct cultural boundaries) to pursue their unions or have children. In some cases, the opposition will be limited to mild ostracism while in other extremes, it might lead to physical harm, if not execution. Whatever their forms, these are types of enforcement within socio-legal systems that do not recognize or accept such unions.

The relationship between Sarek and Amanda also speaks to the norms that may govern the raising of children in such contexts. Although half-human, Spock is rather explicitly raised in the Vulcan way. Anything human is derided as clearly inferior and lacking in logical thinking. In many mixed families (whether the mix is on the basis of race, religion and/or other distinction), the cultural values of one spouse may dominate over the other's in the raising of their children. Rather than both cultural frameworks having equal representation, there is perhaps in many instances a pattern of dominance. One of the cultural frameworks, whether explicitly or implicitly is presented as dominant so as to impose some sense of uniformity. One of the spouses "converts" and/or otherwise accepts and assimilates (although perhaps not completely) the other spouse's cultural framework and the norms that come with it. The children are raised within the dominant framework while the other may be diminished. This is of course not the case in every such familial context.

Star Trek, as always presents its viewers with a wide range of norms and normative structures. In this posting, I have focused on what the film has shown. In a subsequent posting, I shall explore what was left out and was such omissions suggest about the limitations of Star Trek's implicit commitment to breaking social, political and legal boundaries.

Sources consulted:

Randall Kennedy, Interracial Intimacies: Sex Marriage, Identity and Adoption (New York: Pantheon Books, 2003).

Michael Scharf and Lawrence Roberts, "The Interstellar Relations of the Federation: International Law and Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1994) 25 University of Toledo Law review 577.

Star Trek (Paramount Pictures 2009).

Janie's Got A Gun and Justified Private Violence

Twenty years ago, Boston-based rock band Aerosmith released its highly successful album Pump. Amongst Pump's various tracks was the Grammy award-winning song (and MTV award winning music video directed by David Fincher) Janie's Got A Gun (JGAG). The song highlighted a significant social and legal issue - sexual abuse and incest. JGAG conveys the narrative of the song's protagonist Janie who kills her father for having raped her (presumably not for the first time).

In this blog post, I want to briefly explore how the song deals with the idea of private violence in a familial context. In JGAG, there are fundamentally two acts of familial violence that transpire:, where one causally leads to the other: 1) a father raping his daughter; and 2) the daughter killing her father, both in response to and in order to stop prospective rapes by him against her.

The father and his acts are accurately characterized for what they are - as unjustifiable and wrongful. The rape of one's own child (and anyone else for that matter) is an act of a troubled and disturbed mind - although not necessarily a product of legal insanity. This is conveyed in the following lyrics:

What did her daddy do?
He jacked a little bitty baby
The man has got to be insane

They say the spell that he was under the
lightning and the thunder knew that
someone had to stop the rain

Although Janie is a teenager (as suggested at least in the music video), the father's death is justifiably violent - as justification for raping a "little bitty baby". It also conveys the power imbalance that exists between a parent and child, even when that child is a teenager.

Janie's violence is justified as more than just an act of retribution. It is also presented as a form of remedial action and prospective self-defence. She is the "someone" who "had to stop the rain." As with many individuals who suffer from private violence, there is a fear of revealing it to others only to be disbelieved or to have no action taken to stop it.

They said when Janie was arrested they
found him underneath a train
But man he had it coming
Now that Janie's got a gun she ain't never
gonna be the same.

...

She had to take him down easy and put a
bullet in his brain
She said cause nobody believes me
The man was such a sleaze, he ain't never
gonna be the same.

Janie in this narrative is not presented as just an object of her father's madness/lust/desire, but she is also an agent who takes control of that which causes her utmost pain. Notwithstanding and perhaps in spite of her father's depravity and metaphorical insanity, her agency is nevertheless manifested through a sense of humanity - by taking him down easy and putting a bullet in his brain. One could easily imagine more painful, deserved and vengeful instantiations.

Janie's actions taken against her father are analogous to those who suffer from Battered Spouse Syndrome, where the act of violence waged against an abusive spouse leading to the latter's death does not take place at the time of or in expectation of an imminent attack. It occurs while the abuser is or might be caught unaware of his/her impending death- perhaps even after an abusive act has transpired. In the music video for JGAG, Janie kills her father while he sits in his study, after having just raped her.

The song does not reveal Janie's ultimate fate following her arrest. The song does however convey, intended or otherwise, a sense of justice, retribution and self-defence through Janie's actions.

Deterring misconduct

Rules are ubiquitous and inescapable. This is what Serena Williams discovered in her semi-final match against opponent Kim Clijsters.

Trailing in what turned out to the final game of the second set, Williams was serving when she committed what the line judge determined to be a foot fault (and because this immediately followed a previous serving fault), she lost the point. This brought the score to 15-40 and match point for Clijsters. Williams argued with the line judge and then returned to the line to serve. However, she returned back to apparently express a few more words to the line judge. This entailed shaking the ball in the judge's face and apparently threatening her.

As reported in the New York Times:

Reporters who were courtside said that Williams approached the line judge and they heard Williams shout profanity at her. Holding a ball, Williams said to the lineswoman that “you don’t know me,” appearing to inject it with profanity. Then Williams added that the linewoman was lucky that Williams was not, according to The Miami Herald, “shoving this ball down your throat.”

After this altercation, the Chair Umpire called the line judge over to her chair to disclose what just transpired. The Chair Umpire then determined that Williams would be assessed a one point penalty for a code violation - "unsportsmanlike conduct". This ultimately resulted in Williams losing the final point of the game and finally the match to Clijsters.

What we observe (as if it weren't evident already) is that different institutions and entities within civil society have applicable rules for human conduct and modes of enforcement over whom they have jurisdiction. While most people don't attend court proceedings, many are often spectators and witnesses at popular cultural and sporting events such as tennis and hockey. Spectators witness how "disputes" are adjudicated by "parties" to the game - in the case of Williams-Clijsters match, enforcement of the rules can lead to an anti-climactic result in an otherwise entertaining and dynamic match.

The dispute that took place at the end of the Williams-Clijsters match was particularly interesting from the point of view of the application of the rules to player conduct. Normally, if there is a dispute in tennis about a technical violation and a judge's call on the violation, there is recourse to technical assistance - i.e. computer-generated reconstructions to assess whether the ball was in or out. Here, there was a dispute over what Williams actually said to the line judge. In ruling against Williams, the Chief Umpire opted to believe the line judge's account about what it was that Williams said. Williams could be overheard imploring the umpire that she didn't threaten the line judge's life. The Chief Umpire's decision to positively view the line judge's credibility was probably helped by the threatening gestures Williams had made toward the latter as she was threatening her (not to mention a reputation for losing her cool on the tennis court).

The episode demonstrates the speed at which justice can (and probably needs to) be dispensed at a live sporting event and the serious consequences for a top-seeded player - both with respect to winnings that can be potentially earned and the prestige to be gained from winning the US Open. As in all systems, some rules are designed to encourage or discourage certain types of conduct - for example rules punishing unsportsmanlike conduct. Whether this will ultimately deter Williams or other players with anger management issues, time will tell. But for now it seems to illustrate that tennis has a type of legal system in operation and it is enforced in such a way as to fell one of its foremost athletes at a critical moment of a match.

Truth and Treason

As with many artistic mediums that we explore on this blawg, theatre has been no stranger to themes of law, politics and resistance. One Montreal-based theatre company in particular, Teesri Duniya Theatre (Third World Theatre in Hindustani) has tackled many such themes over the course of its close to 30 year history. Its latest production, Truth and Treason, written by Teesri's artistic director and playwright Rahul Varma is no exception. Set in Iraq in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of the country, the play examines a variety of issues that stem from the invasion and occupation - many of which implicate the law (particularly the laws of armed conflict, treatment of civilians as well as corruption) into the matrix. Rather than spoiling the play by inadvertently revealing too much information, I provide a brief synopsis of the play here, furnished on the Theatre's website:

At a checkpoint in Iraq, a 10-year-old girl named Ghazal is shot by an unidentified U.S. soldier. Behind the checkpoint, a conference on rebuilding Iraq – attended by high-profile Iraqi and American delegates – is underway. The girl’s condition is critical. Captain Edward Alston, the officer in charge of the checkpoint, learns that Ghazal has a rare blood type and requires an immediate transfusion from her father, a jailed Iraqi writer. Captain Alston tries to arrange for a transfusion. He is also about to let the girl’s distraught mother Nahla, a Canadian woman, go past security to be with her daughter when he is overruled by his superior, Commander Hektor Frank. Why? Because the girl’s father Omar, imprisoned for his writings by the now-overthrown dictator Saddam, is classified as a terrorist by the U.S. government. While the two officers argue over the father’s alleged terrorist history, the girl dies in U.S. custody. A complex story arises involving characters in tension with each other and themselves: Nahla, who can use her Canadian passport to free Omar, but only if he stops threatening to avenge Ghazal’s death; Omar, whose family’s survival is threatened by his activities but who feels bound to serve his troubled country; Captain Alston, who must reconcile his duties as a patriot with his conscience; Commander Frank, who harbours a secret past and can’t take any chances; and the clergyman who turns a personal tragedy into a public fatwa by calling upon Muslims to kill Edward for ‘preventing a mother from seeing her child.’ Truth and Treason invites us to discover the real truth behind the war on terror…

Amidst the political statement(s) against the war, about the lies that led to the war in Iraq and the tragedies that have ensued as a consequence are some interesting legal issues that emerge from the play. In connection with the theme of resistance and the law that I have written about on this blawg, one of the legal themes that arises is the conflict that develops between Captain Alston and Commander Frank over the mistreatment and killings of Iraqi civilians by US soldiers - murders that are covered up in order to avoid bringing the military presence into disrepute or to impose liability on those who perpetrated the acts. Alston's efforts to uncover and reveal the extent of the killings and their cover up leads to his disobedience of Frank's orders to remain silent about what is transpiring. Like many resisters, Alston is confronted with the stark choice of being perceived as a patriot or a traitor for his critique of the military's treatment in Iraq.

Confronting unlawful actions advocated by and sustained by military superiors is very real and challenging, whether it is an American soldier in Iraq (or in an earlier period in Vietnam) or other military personnel in various conflicts. As many studies point out, there is a tendency towards obedience, even when such obedience leads to the commission of crimes or their facilitation. Many such individuals face a court-martial, prison and limited career prospects after their incarceration for their disobedience. Some flee and seek asylum in other states only to be denied. Truth and Treason provides a sense of the intense internal struggle one undergoes in challenging their own state and superior officers, particularly when doing otherwise might not only mean a contravention of law, but a violation of one's own moral code.

Cultures of (il)Legality

This December will mark the 20th anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacres that took place at the University of Montreal and resulted in the murder of fourteen women and injuries to fourteen women and men at the hands of a disturbed misogynist, Marc Lepine. A film was recently produced, simply called "Polytechnique" that recounts some of the narratives about and surrounding that day. One of the thematic narratives at play in the film is a culture of illegality out of which Lepine emerged.

The obvious epicenter of the illegality featured in the film is the actual murders and injuries inflicted - fueled by an unyielding hatred against women who Lepine deemed to be feminists unworthy to be studying engineering. Yet what the film seems to suggest is that the misogyny that prompted the killer's rampage was but an extreme manifestation of the discrimination experienced by women, particularly in a field of study and profession that looked negatively upon their presence (as has been the case in most traditionally male-dominated white and blue collar professions).

This was strikingly illustrated in one particular scene. Valerie, one of the central characters in the film (who was later shot by Lepine) attends an interview for a very lucrative internship position with an aeronautics firm. During the interview, her male interviewer overtly communicates his skepticism and surprise that Valerie, as a woman, is interested in pursuing her studies and a career in mechanical engineering, rather than a seemingly less demanding career as a civil engineer where she could more easily pursue a family life. The underlying assumption being that all or most women are driven by some primordial maternal instinct to have a family and raise children. Ultimately, we learn that Valerie is offered the internship position but only after affirming that she does not plan to have children, thus making her more acceptable. The hiring or refusal to hire someone on account of their potential decision to one day have children is patently illegal under today's legal norms (see for example - the Ontario Human Rights Code s.10(2)).

This scene, coupled with the more gruesome shooting sequences illustrates a larger culture of illegal discrimination that once existed (and arguably still exists on some level). While Lepine's shooting spree targetting women was exceptional (in the manner it was carried out), violence against women still substantially continues today in private spheres (as it did then). Furthermore, notwithstanding the legal system's formal intolerance of the type of treatment Valerie experienced during her interview, the attitudes that fostered that treatment still exist (in a variety of employment contexts) and become manifested in more subtle ways during interviews (and in other instances - not so subtly). More often than not, many interviewees will not pursue any action and thus such norms of discrimination and unlawful business actions can continue with impunity.

Interestingly, the interview scene also introduces (at least with respect to the time period of the late 1980s) the idea of an informal caste system where civil engineers appear to occupy a lower status in the engineering hierarchy, a caste which women are expected to occupy because of some presumed desire to have children. Further above is mechanical engineering, which appears to be less amenable and open to women and dominated by men. In order for Valerie to be accepted into this male-dominated caste, she must accept the (arbitrary and discriminatory) norms imposed, as enforced by the male interviewer/gatekeeper. The most blatant norm seems to be that in order to accepted, Valerie must diminish if not eliminate one of the markers that distinguishes her as a woman from her male counterparts, her ability to bear children.

Ultimately, the film attempts to demonstrate that such killings don't transpire in a vacuum. What existed was a(n) (il)legal culture of discrimination that tolerated a certain degree of discrimination against women that Lepine took to an extreme.

Laws of Mourning

Several days ago, Edward M. (“Ted”) Kennedy, longtime Massachusetts Senator and head of his storied family, died after a battle with brain cancer. As has become common in the age of a 24-hour news cycle, the announcement of his death sparked a media frenzy which culminated in coverage of his funeral and burial. Certainly, in the public outpouring of affection for Senator Kennedy and grief at his loss, the media coverage of these events was tailored to Senator Kennedy himself. And yet, in other ways the coverage of his funeral is an essay on the accepted laws of mourning within the religiously pluralistic society that is the United States.

Senator Kennedy was a devout Catholic, as is the Kennedy family generally. The venue for his funeral was Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica in Boston, Massachusetts, where Senator Kennedy had worshipped. On this occasion, the viewing public was invited inside the Basilica in order to watch the funeral mass unfold, complete with eulogies by the Senator’s two sons as well as the President of the United States. In attendance were legendary political figures in both the Democratic and Republican parties, and mourners from all forms of religious backgrounds and beliefs. Much the same can be said of those who watched Senator Kennedy’s funeral on television. Indeed, the fact that his public funeral was conducted in the form of a Catholic funeral mass did not deter viewers of multiple backgrounds from watching the mass itself, along with the eulogies.

What lessons can be drawn from this? The primary lesson is that, even in a religiously pluralistic society such as the United States, there are accepted laws of mourning that make a space for religious rites, regardless of the religious beliefs of the person being mourned, and that the media has a direct role in reinforcing this.

In the days between Senator Kennedy’s death and his funeral, the media rebroadcast portions of the funeral for Robert F. Kennedy, which was similarly conducted in the form of a Catholic mass. The combination of political ceremony and religious ritual which was shown in video clips of RFK’s funeral and in Senator Kennedy’s funeral was also reminiscent of the more recent funerals of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and formed a continuum of understood practice within society for the mourning of political figures. Thus, although the United States prides itself on the separation of church and state as a matter of formal law, it can be seen that, in its societal laws of mourning, the religious beliefs of the person being mourned are respected as being central to mourning practices, and the public partakes of the particular religious practices of the deceased in order to mourn him appropriately. Media has reinforced this norm by making it possible for viewers of all faiths to partake of the funeral rites at issue. From public events of mourning like Senator Kennedy’s funeral, we can thus see a reinforcement of the respect for individual religious beliefs within a religiously pluralistic society.

For background information on the Kennedy funeral, please see http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/kennedy.funeral/index.html

Resistance and Children's Books

As with other forms of cultural expression, children's books can provide a source of education for children implicating legal and moral principles. Various scholars have explored such themes and how contemporary publications, such as the Harry Potter line of books, can be a source for teaching children about autonomy and decision-making.

As I was reading some stories this morning to my daughter, I noticed some important principles that can be transmitted at a very young age from these narratives. For example in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (the short Disney version), the evil Queen orders a huntsman to take Snow White into the forest and kill her (and then cut out her heart and place it in a box to be brought back to the Queen). The huntsman takes Snow White out to the forest, only to release her and tells her to escape. He then kills a deer and places its heart into the box, allowing the Queen to think he carried through with her orders. In a rather simple and abbreviated manner, children are taught that not every command by an authority figure is to be followed and accepted - particularly when the basis of the execution is that Snow White is the fairest in the land. There is a concept inculcated here that not every command or punishment is just and fair, and where such injustice takes place, it may be appropriate to defy implementing a superior command and perhaps use artifice to further protect a potential victim by allowing the superior to believe that the order was carried through.

There are undoubtedly other narratives of resistance and challenges to (criminal) authority embedded within such stories. Whether it is Dorothy defying the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz or Peter Pan confronting Captain Hook in Peter Pan, many of these narratives speak to kids about challenging bullying and harmful exercises of authority that are possibly worth emphasizing at an early age.

Sources:

Shauna Van Praagh, "Adolescence, Autonomy and Harry Potter: The Child as Decision-Maker" (2005) 1 International Journal of Law in Context 335.

Shauna Van Praagh, "Harry Potter and the real story of A.C.: A Wizard's Burden, a Manitoba Girl's Faith." The Globe and Mail. 16 July 2009.