Philosophy Now Forum

Today Peter Erlinder, a professor at my law school, was denied bail and remains in jail in Rwanda. He is charged with genocide denial. http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... _Yyc:aUUsZ
http://www.pr-inside.com/correcting-and ... 934514.htm

Before going to Rwanda, Erlinder sent a letter to some Minnesota lawmakers:

"Knowing he would not be well received by Kagame, Erlinder sought the attention of Minnesota's congressional delegation before departing. Kagame, Erlinder wrote in a May 6 letter to Minnesota lawmakers, had "specifically targeted" him and other human rights lawyers for "discrediting or assassination." Noting Rwanda's long history of violence and assassination, Erlinder concluded, "I must take the threat seriously."

"He knew exactly what he was getting into," said Bill Harper, McCollum's (Rep. Betty McCollum, D-MN) chief of staff. "He knew it was dangerous."
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... page=2&c=y

One could argue that Erlinder ASSUMED THE RISK, a legal concept of which he certainly should have knowledge.

In searching Erlinder's writings, I found the following article and inculpatory statement by the author:

The Great Rwanda "Genocide Coverup"
by Prof Peter Erlinder

Correcting the Historical Record and Ending the Cover-up

"But, I have to disclose my own bias because, under the laws of Rwanda , I too am a criminal “negationist” for writing this essay and President Kagame has personally denounced me as a “genocidaire” for my work as an ICTR defense lawyer."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8137

One could argue that the quoted sentence constitutes an ADMISSION AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, a legal concept of which he certainly should have knowledge.

Erlinder is a leftist. I doubt that he has ever uttered a critical word against Fidel Castro or any other leftist regime.

I would have to say that it does not look good for the professor.

Apparently the article that I cited above is the basis of the prosecution (according to this article).

(Reuters) - A U.S. lawyer arrested in Rwanda for alleged genocide denial has retracted all statements which could have violated the country's anti-genocide laws, Rwanda's chief prosecutor and a legal source said Wednesday. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6515H320100602

"Controversial lawyer C. Peter Erlinder has been placed on a leave of absence for the rest of the spring semester at William Mitchell College of Law, where he's been a professor for 30 years.

Erlinder, who was held in a Rwandan prison for three weeks in 2010 after being accused of minimizing the country's genocide, said he was escorted off campus by staff on Friday and cleaned out his office Tuesday morning."
http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/137538058.html

Erlinder was released on bail and returned to the U.S. I suspect that he may have refused to return to Rwanda for trial (jumping bail). And then there was this that I was not aware of: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/world ... .html?_r=1

Maybe the college is just sick of this leftist celebrity lawyer.

ADDITION: Erlinder was released on bail. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... der-freed/ He may now have jumped bail.

When was Castro accused of genocide anyway?

Not sure what the relevance of him being a leftist is anyway unless you only cherish freedom of speech for those on the right.

Very odd closing comments.
What has Castro to do with this issue?

What the fuck are you on about?

"social justice" is funny

-Imp

The duty of a lawyer is to be the advocate of those he represents.
It is of vital concern that lawyers ought to be able to execute their duty free from fear of prosecution.
This is a vital principle of jurisprudence.
The fact that; "Recognising the effect of Erlinder's arrest, the American Bar Association has called on Rwanda to respect the U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and to "refrain from harassment of lawyers practicing law consistent with their professional obligations."" wiki is a recognition of this.

No country can assume the right to suppress the opinion of lawyers, whilst claiming to promote a just society.

If his college has acted due to his arrest to dismiss him, this is not justice.
If they have sacked him because he is a 'lefty' then what does that say about the USA?

Thanks for bringing up this matter.

Here is a nine minute video expressing criticism of leftists including Castro: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/20/2-4- ... ontPageMag

Here are some student views of Erlinder http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... 6&all=true

Sometimes leftist lawyers cross the line. They claim that the ethical duty to zealously represent the client is without limit. And they land in prison.

"Stewart believes that violence is at times needed to correct for the perceived injustices of capitalism. She states that she doesn’t "believe in anarchistic violence but in directed violence", with directed violence being violence "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

http://lynnestewart.org/

Chaz, supra,: "I suggest you take your childish anti-communist propaganda somewhere else.
Erlinder is a lawyer gaoled for doing his job.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself."

Leftists don't like criticism.

The Castros don't like any speech dissenting from "the Revolution". See this thread:
tbieter

Post subject: Re: An Artist's DilemmaPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:03 pm
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:45 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Recently, a group of Minnesota lawyers visited Cuba. Cuban artists certainly have an “artist’s dilemma” regarding their “freedom of artistic creation”.

“The Cuban Constitution, consisting of 137 articles, has several wonderful provisions. A favorite is Article 38 that requires children to respect and help their parents! Many provisions are imbued with equality and fairness that most people would agree with. But then there is the negative that is an anathema to lovers of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment: Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution allows for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, so long as that speech complies with socialist principles. It also provides that all media must be owned by the state. Article 53 states:
Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at the exclusive services of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulates the exercise of those freedoms.

Article 39 (d) regulates freedom of artistic creation in a manner similar to freedom of speech: “There is freedom of artistic creation as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution. There is freedom of artistic expression.” (Emphasis added) http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/01/cubas-legal-composite/

Some like him and some don't? So what? This thread reads like some personal grudge to be honest.

I feel a unsubscribe coming on.
It's time to leave Tbieter to his own vitriol