But Microjustice…sounds like you get a 5 min court hearing or similar. But no it’s a new form of legal representation using the microfinance model. Let’s face it lawyers don’t come cheap and yet justice is supposed to be a universal right. Right’s can also be expensive but legal activists are pioneering a new approach.

“The similarity between microjustice and microfinance is largely a way of thinking,” Van Swinderen says, “to not look at poor people as victims. Just to be very businesslike serves them much better than to always treat them like poor people who need support. Almost all development programs create a dependency that is not so desirable.”

It’s a small start but could lead to a big change in how legal services are delivered to those less well off.

In many countries it’s hard to fund an impartial tribunal never mind actually get a hearing. Nowhere is this more difficult than the abusive regime in Burma which jailed at least 11dissidents, involved in the recent monk led uprising, to 65 years in jail.

No defense. Closed session.

Nice to see Obama looking to close Guantanamo Bay. The need for due process has never been more pressing.

The rule of law and a framework for implementing it is the basis of any functioning society. As I am fond of telling passionate eco-warriors, without security there can be no protection of the ecosystem.

How can one establish rights if there is no forum to demonstrate them as valid.

As in article 7, the issues of competency and actual law come to bear here. if the legal structure is weak then it is likely that violations of rights will or could be ignored or overruled.

This seems to parellel Article 6. Surely all are equal before the law?

Well as we know that is not the case. Or to paraphrase Orwell, “all humans are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

Men and women for example are treated unequally in many jurisdictions. Sometimes it makes me wonder how they drafted this thing with a straight face. Did they actually believe it? Answers on a postcard please.

Of course they do.

The question is: what law?

A kangaroo court is a law of sorts. Or perhaps Sharia Law appeals? If you think stoning a woman to death is still an appropriate punishment.

Or perhaps you could be under “house arrest” for 13 years.

Yes recognition as a person before the law is important but perhaps not as important as the law itself and its application in a fair and open manner.

In his paper, The Nature of Money, John Kutyn examines in detail what money is starting from the late 16th century. He explores the development of what we know as bank notes from their early days as accommodation bills and the establishment of the Bank of England as a way of funding a war against France.

 He follows the development of money and banking primarily through the legal process andlooks at numerous cases in law of challenges to the meaning of money and the transactions it is used for.

He challenges the banking system to show that it is not acting fraudulently in law when it uses deposits as money and actually creates money via new loans. Of course only a Reserve Bank can create money or so the law states. So is true? Well i suggest you read his paper and draw your own conclusions but he makes a compelling case.

Not content with that he then moves on to looking at the economic impacts of the current system which has a built in imperative for growth resulting in continued boom bust cycles. He argues that this is down to the interest burden and that debt free money is the only way a stable economy can be achieved.

 As we approach yet another global bust and possible depression it is worth relfecting on the themes in this paper.