الخميس، 9 مارس 2017

I'm finding it difficult to write my essay... in fact to write anything. It has become so hard to write descriptions that don't come from my heart. The other day I wrote a review about Mistress America and I checked the length today and it was around 1000 words. My essay is 1500 words. How come I find it so easy to write about a movie, yet find it so difficult to conjure up the ability to write my essay? Is it because I find it boring? But I don't! The 'idea' of judicial independence and it's theoretical nature excites me! But I can't write about it. Sometimes I feel like I lost the ability to write anything, just because the novelty of it is gone. When I think about the question, I feel scatter brained... but then I look at it and feel excited... but then again I start researching and I feel scatter brained. What is wrong with me? I've always liked theory. I love theory. Public law, although deals with a lot of processes, is quite theoretical in the sense that it deals with doctrines and principles. I like that. I thought of writing this when I was in the bathroom (all good ideas come to me in the bathroom), thinking perhaps it will help me start writing about the essay. Sometimes, it's just getting started that takes a while... but then once I'm fired up I can't stop. Let me write a bit about the essay question: It is a statement that praises the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, saying that the constitutional position of the judiciary has been enhanced, as well as the doctrine of judicial independence. Before I jump into my opinion on this statement that we are meant to critically evaluate, I need to unpack it. First of all, the idea that the constitutional position has been enhanced is essentially eluding to the idea of separation of powers. I think that previous to the CRA, the constitutional position of the judiciary was not the best in terms of being controlled by the Lord Chancellor who sat in the executive (and thus politically influenced), as well as the fact that judges were Lords and sat in the House of Lords. It is theoretically protected under common law, in the doctrine of judicial independence. How protected was it, though?
I'm slightly confused, because I've been cheating by going on facebook and looking for science articles to translate rather than focus on this essay introduction thing I'm doing. Okay, now I need to get back to it. Perhaps I can continue to ask myself the question of whether I believe the CRA to have had a positive effect on the constitutional position of the judiciary or not. Has it? Well, to continue on from earlier, and the idea that there wasn't really a clear cut separation of powers because all three branches of government were fused. Now, post-CRA, the judiciary is separate in the sense that it regulates itself internally - see, previously, the Lord Chancellor who was also a minister (thus part of the executive), as well as the one in charge of appointments, by being a part of another branch, was 'regulating' the third branch of the judiciary without a second thought. Now, by changing his job, the fear that his appointments are biased is gone because there is also now an external committee that deals with appointments based on merits. This committee is called the Judicial Appointment Committee. Having thought about it a little bit, do I believe this enhanced the position of the judiciary? I'm not quite sure. I do remember thinking that the judiciary isn't really that affected by the CRA - but rather it is the idea that it is independent in the public eyes that has been enhanced - but that was because I was persuaded by the textbook. I still half-think so, as half of me thinks that it is important to have rules such as judicial independence codified, but that is for precaution, not because anything was wrong with it. What do I think now? I'm not quite sure.. and to be honest, it shouldn't matter much as long as I pick a position. If I were to argue that the position of the judiciary has not been improved, it is the idea that either separation of powers never was an issue pre-CRA, or that today's structure is worse. I then need to back this up with the use of examples. The second part of the question addresses the doctrine of judicial independence. As opposed to the first part being about the power and effectiveness of the judiciary in comparison to the other branches, this second part is about independence from the influence of politics. Perhaps this is where it might be helpful to discuss the change in the role of the Lord Chancellor.
Now, because I am still unsure as to what I will be doing, I will do some reading to add some substance to this essay plan. I will add bits worth mentioning in red.
First, I will open Griffith's 'The Politics of the Judiciary' book. It is blue and a nice size. I don't quite like the cover but that is irrelevant.
Some notes I might end up including from Griffith's book:
- p.293: In a section titled the Neutrality myth, Griffith quotes Lord Diplick who essentially says something like judges are never neutral and he deliberates on the reasons and then says something to the effect that they don't allow anyone to go against their judgement, and they do it by charging for contempt of the court. So basically, court is highly respected and it has tools to impose to ensure its judgement is followed through. This is probably irrelevant because its about the courts power and it has no relation to CRA.
The book is very interesting but all I can find in it that could be used is the idea (and empirical proof) that the judiciary is not neutral. I can use that. I might take it out to read it for pleasure.
As for the second book, also by Griffith, it is called 'Judicial Politics since 1920'. It is a black hardcover book... and opening the contents page made me realize that it would be of no use. It is essentially a history book. It smells good, though. It smells of 'old books' because it is an old book itself. I will put this to the side and look on the online library to find more sources.
Having looked at the Public Law tab, there is a folder containing some material on the CRA. I have looked at a couple the other day and they are a nightmare in terms of wording and complication - they might not be, but that's the way I felt the other day with the minimum research. Now that I have a better knowledge of the topic, I will understand it more.
I opened the HL report on the Lord Chancellor and somewhere, p.7, in the section on the role of LC, it says that he is to respect the rule of law and defend judicial independence. Chapter 2 has more on that. Apparently LC duties are set out in s 1 and 3 of the CRA. It says that the rule of law is not understood, yet the LC is expected to promise to respect it.
The HL adopts Bingham's 8 principles of the rule of law. By adopting it, we may wish to compare the principles to what is actually practiced by the courts today.
So apparently, a responsibility of practicing the rule of law is judicial independence.
On another resource, p.156 (United Kingdom - The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - Defending Judicial Independence the English Way Constitutional Developments, Woodhouse, Diana), the question of what the LC is meant to be defending arises yet again. She replies to her question: 'judicial independence'. Then she explains it by talking about the meaning and requirements of judicial independence. She says that the purpose of judicial independence is upholding the rule of law as well as maintaining public confidence of the judiciary as a system. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider this idea in my essay.
I am still lost as to what I should write about exactly.
How do I critically evaluate the statement that the judiciary is better off? Oh yes, I compare it to its previous status.
Okay, so here is the plan. I will leave the library and go home. I will finish up preparation for tomorrow's Land Law seminar. I will continue to think about this essay. I will tomorrow (officially, not like this) write a section from the first bit of the question. I will know what to do. It will be fantastic. Actually, since I'm writing already, I should write the official introduction to the essay. It will be written here.

[next section deleted bcs apparently you can plagiarize yourself lol]


I am back and it is morning here. I am looking at the slides on the Judiciary and thought I'd note that the powers of the judiciary are limited by the principle of parliamentary supremacy - thus courts must apply primary legislation and thus cannot strike it down as unconstitutional. Theoretically speaking then, we can say that courts cannot strike down a legislation made by parliament making them less independent. I don't think this is relevant but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Judicial independence is defined in a book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jEG0KVCu_soC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=judicial+independence+uk&ots=aEU44_sW3c&sig=6gARlZ2On9BFvyQsGDfkXx1b42M#v=onepage&q=judicial%20independence%20uk&f=false ////// Shimon Shetreet Ch. 52 Judicial Independence) to not only be individual indepdendence of the judge, but also the collective independence of the branch as a whole - not only from external pressures of the executive and the legislative branch, but also internally. Taking this definition into account, it may be possible to say that the CRA has managed to take that stress off from judges because of the change in the role of the LC. Is it also possible to say that the doctrine of Security of Tenure may play a part in this, enabling a judge to do what they do. This is because judges need not fear being removed for the decisions they make, unless they are corrupt in which case the LC must address the Crown etc.. so its a big mess and hasn't happened since 188x. So what might work, is mentioning this distinction between internal and external independence and then comparing pre to post CRA.

[statement deleted] An example may be seen in the case of x.

A threat to the independence of the judiciary may be seen in the fact that the Lord Chancellor has the last say on appointments - we can say that in theory, LC can choose on a basis other than merit if he pleases, however, the fact that there is an established Ombudsman means that complaints regarding appointments may be made without fear. An example may be seen in the complaint to the Ombudsman in the year x regarding x.

.... x defined judicial independence as being .......

Australian source that might be used as a source of a source: ( http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicJSchol/2010/7.pdf ) p.3
(i) It was Montesquieu who said in his 'The Spirit of Laws' that the importance of separating the Judiciary from the executive and legislature lies in the fear that judges would otherwise be oppressive and lose their neutrality which is a prerequisite  for people to have faith in the legal procedure and its decisions. 

p.4 judicial independence as a concept, is freedom from influence. influence from the government of the day, from partisanship, from the media, from personal prejudices even.. to be completely neutral. An example of this detachment from what a judge believes may be seen in the Miller case where interestingly enough, one of the dissenting views was formed by a hardcore pro-Brexit dude.


The explicit reference to the concept 'rule of law' in s.1 CRA was clarified in the HL publication by Professor Craig, P. (https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldconst/151/15115.htm) - 
Therefore, we could say that it is merely codifying already existent principles. This has the effect of rendering the principles binding on everyone, which could be said to enhance the doctrine of judicial independence.. but not much more.

Woodhouse exclaims that the supremacy of parliament is a reason why judges constitutionally play such a limited role (Int J Const Law (2007) 5 (1): 153-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol039) 

La La Land LOVELY NIGHT scene interpretation

I saw La La Land late January... and up to this day, the charm still hasn't faded. I listen to the soundtrack nearly daily and refuse to read reviews (I usually do after good films to better inform my initial impression) because I don't want my views to be altered or influenced. I know I will one day, but not quite yet. The following is a recollection (interpretation?) of the Lovely Night scene that I shared on whatsapp with M (we went to see it together. she was clever and brought tissue papers with her to the theater which was much appreciated) because why not. I'm sharing it as it is, with minimal editing.


'The Lovely Night scene is really cool because if you look closer you'll notice that they're mimicking each other's movements (=that's how attraction works according to the study of body language).

We see the beginning of this happen when she starts changing her shoes (admitting that she's a girl 'not in heels' therefore 'this' appeals to her). That is where Seb starts copying her movements.. then he looks into her bag (probably signifying getting to know her: asking the right questions, etc.. then she shies away and steals back her bag.. which might indicate her not being ready to share that much.. but it's only shyness, rather than feeling upset and intruded upon). Then he jumps on to the chair and she waits for a bit then starts mimicking his movements.. so she is now also showing us with her body language that she is attracted to him. Then they get into synchronization indicating that perhaps they had a long intense conversation that they were able to fully immerse themselves into. Their movements also complement each others.. for example, he would move his hands to the left and she would wait for her turn to move to the right, etc. then when she walks back to her car we notice how dark it is indicating that their 'conversation/time together' lasted all night - a nod to people saying 'we just talked all night'.

This is not mentioning things we already talked about [M and I]: him starting out by saying what a waste of a lovely night, then being hopeful until she said you're not the guy for me. The teasing that happens between them. You can clearly see how big his ego is... Mia has a playful personality, apparently not being hurt by stuff he says (maybe she is, but is good at hiding it), and instead retaliates by actions (also seen in her revenge by making him play a song she knew he wouldn't enjoy)... or other things like walking back to his car.

At the end, just before he walks back to his car, he 'relives' the night -the dance-, by doing a couple of foot sweeps that they did earlier.

Next scene, it cuts to Mia next morning who we also see re-living the night by twirling as she walks to work.'

Cute. 

السبت، 4 مارس 2017

Mistress America: an impression

I just saw Mistress America, and I loved it. I felt the same way I did after watching other Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach films (Frances Ha, Greenberg, The Squid and the Whale): I was taken away by the deliberate ironic pretentiousness of it and excited by the chance to decipher the symbolism and find the deeper meaning behind this otherwise cute and quirky movie.

There's just so much to talk about.. I don't know where to start and I will not be covering everything. There will be spoilers, because this is not a review. I just want to talk about my impression without feeling the need to refine it, to hold on to my initial reaction before I forget it. I want to remember things like the way the film mocks itself whilst still embraces itself. It's unique but also very Woody Allen-like. It's a film about films from writers about writers and possibly a feminist critique on the portrayal of women in film.

The characters in Greta and Noah's films are almost always self-absorbed, selfish, unaware of their faults.. narcissistic even.
Brooke is like that. She is a wild spirit that can't finish anything she starts because she has all these great ideas that never work out. She brushes people off and doesn't realise (or care) that she'd hurt their feelings. She thinks she has an illness: sitting in front of the computer or tv for hours and not getting anything done then lying about it. She's all over the place. She is a stereotype of the non-adulting adult that has become the ultimate representation of our generation. Tracy is also a very flawed character herself, and we're not meant to realize until later on. But here's a secret: everyone is flawed.

Tracy is fascinated by Brooke and so she hangs out with her, or rather, follows her around... she inspires her to write about her in a short story titled Mistress America (title coming from a screenplay idea by Brooke, perhaps to further illustrate and maybe confirm Brooke's claim that people always steal her ideas.) We later find out, in the climatic scene that the whole film builds up to, that the content of the story is not all "nice".. and neither is Tracy. It's my favourite scene and the point where you can see the influence of Woody Allen.

 In the theatrical confrontational scene that made me forget I was watching a movie - but instead a play-, after a comedic buildup, we reach a point where everyone is gathered around the script of Mistress America, reading the story together. In the calm before the storm, we can tell that the obnoxious, unrealistic honesty that every character displayed throughout the film was going to reach it's peak. When they finish, they all have something to say including the random neighbour and the pregnant lawyer friend - both very out of place. The random neighbour that we never really know the point of, is there to symbolize the outsider. The reader that is new to this genre. The keen pop music listener that listens to a screamo out of convenience one evening because it was playing on tv. It is illustrated with his foreign accent and standoffish personality. He's clearly not going to find the screaming appealing because he's so attuned to hearing auto-tuned voices singing about love and fame and money. He thinks the story is bad. The pregnant lady is also out of place, and her reaction is something like "I don't like it, its so pastiche.. all the work of your generation is like that". I had to look that word up, and apparently it's "an artistic work that imitates the style of another work, artist or period and unlike parody, it celebrates rather than mocks the work it imitates". She eludes to the idea that maybe this film is imitating the style of another... or maybe by mentioning 'pastiche' and clearly mocking itself, it is actually parodying, rather than imitating, the style of another.

It becomes clear to me in that scene, that a big theme of the film is the idea of reader/viewer/consumer interpretation. At the moment, I am reading (slowly but surely!), Eco's 'Confessions of A Young Novelist' which is essentially a book of essays, some of which are on the technicalities of interpretation... and so as Eco might say, I am projecting my internal world onto my interpretation of Mistress America... but wouldn't it be fun if the film did actually consider those questions? I believe that it does.


I see it very clearly in the questions that Meme Clare asks Tracy after they read the story. By asking her questions that are irrelevant to the story, such as her opinion on abortion clinics and female genital mutilation, she symbolizes the consumer/reader/viewer that desperately tries to contextualize everything, even where it is difficult to apply the narrative to politics or current affairs. Eager and angry and arrogant, she pulls out a list of questions that she expects to be answered - much like an imdb message board (RIP) troll.


What is funny here though, is that we realize the questions are relevant by virtue of being 'irrelevant' to the story and we can see it clearly in the group's accusation that the story portrays women badly. They are feminist questions that 'read too much into the story', but manage to hit the right nail in the process. In making the version of Brooke in the story a 'gold-digging something something something bitch', we are offered a criticism to the way women have been portrayed in film, literature and art throughout history.. except that in this case it was accurate because the Brooke we get to know in the film is a self-absorbed mess who is insensitive to others and isn't very nice and actually is a gold-digging bitch. And instead of being a mean girl stereotype (scene where she is confronted by her classmate from school), or a manic panic pixie dream girl (she left Dylan and he married yet still swoons all over her, never quite over the wild girl that left him), or a successful new-yorken businesswoman (aspires to open a restaurant but is faced by a great hurdle), she is everything and nothing because that is what a real person is like, as opposed to a Regina George or a Margo or a Carrie Bradshaw. She is complicated and can be a mess that can make some things work out for her and fail at other things.

But honest portrayals of people and circumstances, although valuable, makes you a monster in the eyes of those blind to their faults. Brooke definitely thought that much of Tracy after she learns about her flaws as seen through Tracy's eyes. But ultimately, despite knowing about Brooke's obviously flawed character she wasn't discouraged but rather fascinated and intrigued. Is Tracy a monster for enjoying and celebrating raw human nature?

As for Tracy's relationship with her only friend in college, we later learn from him that he wants 'someone to love, not to compete with'. This is despite the fact that he admitted to liking her. I think this illustrates two things: the difficulty artists run into when looking for love; they want to be with people they like and understand and can relate to, but often feel competitive with. And the idea that insecure men don't want smart women as partners because they feel intimidated by them. There is also an element of treating a partner as a possession, as seen in the way the jealous girlfriend he chooses over Tracy obnoxiously displays. This is paralleled with Meme Clare's relationship with Dylan.. perhaps a glimpse into the future of this kind of relationship: it doesn't last. Dylan doesn't try to hold onto Meme Clare by telling her he loves her as an afterthought the way the college friend does to his jealous girlfriend. Dylan brushes Meme Clare off and it's sad... and it foreshadows the parallel relationship: it won't work and instead this obsessive display of emotions is temporary and driven by an immature craving for attention and validation.

What about the creator/writer/artist? We never really know. Tracy is inspired by Brooke and she uses her as material but she feels bad about it. At one point, she even wonders whether she has a conscious. But as she goes back to Brooke to apologize, we never really know if it was sincere, or if she later felt compelled by the possibility of having access to Brooke's journal, and thus more material. We never know because in reality, we never know whether the writer experiences things to write about them or writes about things because they experienced them.
Upon a second viewing, I realize I'm wrong about this part I crossed out. Tracy notices that Brooke kept a copy of the journal the story was written in, and realizes that Brooke still cares about her. I don't know what to make of this, since it has a different meaning from my original interpretation.. but I guess it means that the monster has been embraced by them both. 

I have so much more to say... but I can't put them to words right now (and thus I think never will?).
I appreciate the film so much, and I can see myself re-watching it.

- YOURS TRULY



الجمعة، 3 مارس 2017

تخربيش مش أكاديمي (يتم تحديثه بشكل دوري - اخر تحديث 9/10/2017)

بإعتباري نيرد تحب تركز خلال المحاضرة، و تتفكر من خلالها مقدار الحب اللي نكنه لتخصصي لمّا نسمع تفاصيل المادة من الأستاذ\ة - خاصة لما يكون واضح شغفه للمادة... لازم نتبرأ من الرسمات القادمة و نقول انها تساعد على التركيز خلال المحاضرات المملة و الأيام السيئة بدل ما انها تأخذني لمكان ثاني. و لكن بإعتباري صادقة في كل اللي نكتب فيه هني، لازم نعترف بأن قانون الملكية مرة مرة يولي بارد، و صوت استاذ القانون الدولي مرة مرة يولي جامد... و بأن كراسة الملاحظات مرة مرة تولي أحادية اللون، و تلوح لي مثل الحائط الفارغ بأن أزينها. 

فكرة هذا المنشور ولد من محاضرة قانون الملكية اسبوعين فاتوا، لمّا قررت ان تسجيل العقارات معلومات ثانوية نقدر نلقاها على النت بروحي.. و فضّلت نخربش حوش بالبيروات بدل ما نسمع. للتوثيق، سيتم تحديث المنشور مرة مرة لما يجو قدامي رسمات ينتموا الى هذه المجموعة، و أولهم قطعة الأرض القبيحة اللي رسمتها مقابل السماء الشاسعة. 
شن كنت نفكر؟ ماكنتش. بآلية مريبة، حاولت نمنع اللي وراي من انه يعرف انني مش موجودة. فشلت، و طيّحت البيرو اكثر من مرة. الأستاذة، ترتدي فستان اخضر قنين و بصوتها الرّنان اللي جاي من قاع حنجرتها يحكي بشغف حقيقي عن قضية تمثل قاعدة انجليزية تمنع الاحتيال في الملكية. قداش تعجبني هذه الأستاذة، و قداش تزعجني. من أول ما خشت في الاسبوع الأول، اعلنت عن حبها للعقود: "لن يحب أحد منكم العقود بالقدر الذي أحبهم أنا".. و من ثم تستمر في خيانة العقود مع مؤلف كتابنا من خلال اقتباساتها المستمرة. 
رغم وجودها بين أكثر الأشياء ملموسة: الأراضي، الا و أن رأسها في السماء. خليط قنين.. خليط ما ينفعش. او هكي حيقولوا الناس. 



 أما الوجوه العشوائية هذه، فهي الوجه المخفي من علاقات الدول مع بعضها. الأستاذ سكوبي اللي جي متأخر و كل دقيقة يخلعك بلهجته الشمالية و هو يقول "الآن" و كأنه يقول "لا!"، تنوضك من سباتك لعلك تكوني قد كتبتي شيء غير مناسب في ملاحظاتك. بدت التخربيشة بالوجه اللي فوق، و امتدت لليسار قبل اليمين و استمرت في الصفحة القادمة. 




دولة فرح طلعت من حصة، مش محاضرة، في عز الصبح. 

صباح الاثنين نضت قالبة وجهي و جررت وجهي الى الفصل و قعمزت في تركينة على أمل ان صداعي اللي ناتج عن قلة الكافيين ما يضطرش يواجه الأسئلة.. و لكنني نوديت لأجلس بالقرب من البقية بش تكون حلقة نقاش مناسبة. و أول سؤال يوجه لي، و ردي يكون مقتضب و من ثم صفعة وقاحة بنكهة ليبية ما كنتش نعرف انها حتطلع مني بينت وجهها. 
خلتني في وجه الاستاذة الشابة دولة دكتاتورية في المثال القادم، و كان فيها تعليقي الوحيد "اول ماي بيبول لوف مي". 
و لكنني اكتشفت مؤخراً انني أي.أن.أف.بي، و ع اساس طيبة و متسامحة (او ربما كسولة و ماعندهاش جهد تكتب دستور)... فرسمت بعد الحصة دولة فرح اللي تعبر عن الأوضاع المثالية، بداية برقبة طويلة و هلال هو محور المجموعة، انتهاءً بقانون وحيد يضع العالم كله في خانة المحبين و المتسامحين.

القانون الوحيد
 ديروا اللي تبوه: عندي ثقة فيكم و في قدرتكم على الحب و الشفقة. 

كذب طبعاً، و الدليل عالم اليوم و الأمس و كل يوم. و لكن الأمل جميل و ينبغي على الصورة ان تكون جميلة.
_____________

9\3\2017

اول مرة لمادة قانون الاجرام نقرر نطبع ملاحظاتي بدل ما نكتبهم بخط اليد لحصة اللي تركيزها قانون السرقات... و ربع ساعة قبل الحصة ماشية بنطبعهم في المكتبة و لكن كل الطابعات فيهم مشكلة مايخدموش. و لهذا اضطريت نخش على الفصل بدون ملاحظاتي للأسئلة المطروحة. شن هالمصيبة؟ مصيبة لأن قوانين محددة مش مطالبة نحفظ ارقامهم الخ و لكن يجب الاشارة اليهم اثناء الاجابة. لا مش مصيبة لأن احلى مادة عندي و نتفكر في كل شيء، و نخش متوكلة على ربي. استاذ الحصة هذه يحب يسمع صوته هههه و عنده الحق لأن نكته اللي يدس فيهم بين الجمل فيهم جو الحق.. و تفكرت تحضيري و مشي كل شيء تمام..... الا لما وصلنا للجزء الأخير: الاحتيال. الارقام المزبوطة لقانون الاحتيال؟ مانعرفش لأنني مش محتالة هههه قصدي احتيالي جيد لدرجة مش لازم نخاف ننحبس. لقيت روحي تلقائياً نخربش و نلوّن و فاتوني اخر نكت الأستاذ..... بس مش مشكلة، ما انفضحتش. قدرت نحتال على الفصل يحسابوني بينهم.
___________________
26\4\2017


محاضرة مراجعة بين الدستوري و الإداري.. الأساتذة مرهقين بعد سنة أكاديمية طويلة.
نصائحهم المهمة بشأن فترة الإمتحانات: take care of yourself
don't panic
exam is just an event that is not good nor bad - it's your perception of the event that is making you anxious not the nature of the event
حاضر.












___________________
9\10\2017

اليوم حضرت محاضرة مش ليّا و كانت ممتعة! مشيت مع صاحبتي اللي قالتلي "حي تبي تجي معي؟ ساعة بس" و رغم أنني كنت مخططة نكمل نقرأ لمادة ثانية، قررت نمشي. علاش لا؟ بداية السنة. المحاضرة كانت في مجال القانون الطبي و الأخلاق medical law and ethics. لأنها مادة اختيارية لطلبة السنة النهائية، كانت قاعة المحاضرة صغيرة نسبياً. قعمزنا في مكان مش بعيد عن الأمام. بدأت المحاضرة بمتابعة حديث المحاضرة السابقة، عن الوضع القانوني الحالي فيما يتعلق بتناول الأم الحامل لما يضر طفلها من دخان و كحول، و من ثم تطور الحديث و توقف فجأة و دخلت في موضوع جديد: هل يحق للحكومة أن تتحكم في أساليب حياة الأفراد في سبيل المصلحة العامة. ليس حديث جديد بالنسبة لي، و لكن الجديد هو قفز المحاضرة نحو الأوجه العملية فجأة دون خلفية فلسفية و نظرية كما كنت قد أعتدت من محاضرات الفلسلفة السياسية political theory/philosophy، الحديث كان دون مقدمات و بدأ بسؤال "هذا هو الوضع" قبل "هكذا يجب أن يكون"، و من ثم للتبسيط أختزلت المشكلة في سؤال: هل يحق للحكومة أن تمنع تناول السكر؟ ارتفعت بعض الأيدي. لم أرفع يدي، لا فقط لتفادي أن تسألني لماذا (مش بس لأنني مش مدرجة في الفصل و لكن لأن مجموعة و public speaking و هكي) و لكن أيضاً لأن رأيي متضارب. الرسمة تعبر عن حالتي و أنا استمع بإهتمام الى ما يدور من حديث. أنتهت الساعة و أخبرت صديقتي نون. كم كانت المحاضرة ممتعة و لكنها أخبرتني أنها كانت تكافح النوم. ما لا تمتحن فيه دائماً ما يكون ممتع، أما ما يجب عليك تعلمه فهو عذاب.