Dictum of the day, or on dream of healthy democracy

[T]he Constitution does not envisage a mathematical form of democracy, where the winner takes all until the next vote-counting exercise occurs.  Rather, it contemplates a pluralistic democracy where continuous respect is given to the rights of all to be heard and have their views considered... The open and deliberative nature of the process goes further than providing a dignified and meaningful role for all participants. It is calculated to produce better outcomes through subjecting laws and governmental action to the test of critical debate, rather than basing them on unilateral decision-making. It should be underlined that the responsibility for serious and meaningful deliberation and decision-making rests not only on the majority, but on minority groups as well. In the end, the endeavors of both majority and minority parties should be directed not towards exercising (or blocking the exercise) of power for its own sake, but at achieving a just society where, in the words of the Preamble, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it”‘.

Democratic Alliance and Another v. Masondo NO and Another (CCT29/02) [2002] ZACC 28; 2003 (2) BCLR 128; 2003 (2) SA 413 (CC) (12 December 2002), J Sachs, para. 42-43.

Dictum of the day, or on Europe of Dreams

The problem of applying Article 10 of the Convention to exposing of political symbols deserves in my opinion our attention and profound reflection. Exposing extremists’ symbols does not seem to be a goal to which I would be ready to subscribe at any cost and rate. The Europe I believe in is by no means a Europe of extremists’ symbols. I am opposed to Europe of swastikas, Europe of concentration camps and gulags, Europe of hatred marked by banners.

Fáber v. Hungary (application no. 40721/08), Chamber Judgment, 24 July 2012, Concurring Opinion of Judge Popović joined by Judge Berro-Lefevre.

Dictum of the day, or on free speech heaven

[F]or those who have the inclination to use “Twitter” for the purpose, Shakespeare can be quoted unbowdlerised, and with Edgar, at the end of King Lear, they are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel.

Paul Chambers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [2012] EWHC 215, 27 July 2012, Lord Judge, para. 28.

Dictum of the day, or on vita brevis

The often prolonged delays in the operation of human justice seem to disclose an indifference to the brevity of human existence, to the time of human beings [...] It is high time to bridge the unfortunate décalage between the time of human justice and the time of human beings [...] [E]veryone lives within time, - the existential time of each one. The irreversible passing of time not only leaves its marks in the aging body, but also marks its flow in one’s conscience. Each person is ineluctably linked more to her own existential time (which cannot be changed) than to the space where she lives (which can be changed). Each person lives inevitably within her own time, conscious that it will come to an end. If one’s life-time is marked by injustice and impunity, one is left with the impression, after the occurrence of all the atrocities, that nothing seems to have happened at all. 

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ, 20 July 2012, Separate Opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, para. 146, 149, 152.

Dictum of the day, or on the heart of liberty

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Dictum of the day, or on hopes of equality

Democracy is founded on the principle that each individual has equal value. Treating some as automatically having less value than others not only causes pain and distress to that person but also violates his or her dignity as a human being [...] Democracy values everyone equally even if the majority does not. 

Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 (21 June 2004), Hale J., para. 132.

Dictum of the day, or on the arbitrariness of analogy

...where such manifestly conflicting rulings stem from the same jurisdiction, and no reasonable explanation is given for the divergence, such rulings smack of arbitrariness.

Saghinadze and others v. Georgia, Applicaton no. 18768/05, Judgment (Merits), 27 May 2010, para. 116.

Now - how would this apply to a country, the only such in the world, that does not even have the "same"/single/unifying jurisdiction? Systematic arbitrariness beyond all reason.