Employees Must Wash Their Hands

If you've ever been to the bathroom in a restaurant or a bar in New York, you must have seen this sign. It's always there, saying "Employees must wash their hands before returning to work," or something of the sort.
I always wonder how effective that sign is. I mean, I'm sure there's some kind of legal duty (either a statute or a city ordinance) making it mandatory to have one of those signs in every toilet in every business that sells food. I wonder if that duty is just on the business owners to locate the sign in their bathroom, or if there's an actual legal duty on employees to wash their hands, and the owners just have to notify their employees of that duty.
I mean, how would anyone know if the employee actually washed her hands before returning to work? If it's one of those places where the sink is located in the same room with the toilet seat, it's all done behind locked doors and there's no way to tell. It's like a cat in a box with no openings. You have no idea what's going on inside.
They always teach you in law school that the law wouldn't create a duty it cannot enforce. They also teach you that there's a distinction between the public sphere (where duties and rights are regulated) and the private sphere (where one is free to do as she likes). But the duty set on employees to wash their hands after using the toilet is completely unenforceable, and is located in the most private sphere one could imagine. One little sign is defying everything I ever knew about law.

Human Nature

Is it only me, or is it true that most professors (and students) in gender studies are either women or gay men? I never seriously surveyed every law school faculty, but my gut feeling tends to say that this really is the case.
In a way, it's kind of sad. We teach ourselves that the law is a social tool that promotes equality to all members of society. I think that a more proper definition is that the law is a social tool through which disenfranchised minorities are able to claim their own equality. Not that this is a bad thing. It's good to have a social field in which people can struggle for their rights without violence and with a pretty good chance of getting what they deserve. It's just a shame to find out that, still, people actively fight mostly for their own rights, and much less for the rights of others. They might vigorously support such a struggle, but not really engage in its promotion.
So next time you're born into a minority group, at least make sure you're born to a relatively large and educated one. Otherwise you might find that you're really screwed.

Virtual Borders

I remember how in the 90's, when the internet just started to gain popularity, there was this new feeling in the air. Everyone felt like the world as we know it is going to change, and that borders and physical location are going to become meaningless. The Global Village, they called it. No matter where you are, anything and everything would be just a mouse-click away, since it's all going to be online.
For some time it really seemed like it's going in that direction. Information became accessible worldwide and international contacts became easy to maintain. Suddenly, instead of interacting with the people who lived near you, you could interact with people like you even if they were on the other side of the world.
But this giant leap seems to be slowing down now, if not taking a completely different direction. When information started flowing so easily across borders, it was clear that intellectual property (IP) rules would have to change. IP law can only be enforced where it applies and where there are means to enforce it. That means that if something (let's say, sharing media files) is illegal in Country A and legal in Country B, media that flows from Country A to Country B is lost to it's owners in Country A, in the sense that they can no longer earn money from their property in Country B. More importantly, even if sharing media files is illegal in Country B, if the media's owner is located in Country A, and Country B is on the other side of the world, it might be too expensive for the media's owner to sue in Country B, and useless for it to sue in Country A.
This problem in enforceability had to be resolved in some way, and such a way did come up. More and more online media is now free to use, while it is sponsored by commercials. So if media is free, there's less insentive for people to download illegally, and the media owner is making its profits of commercials. This model was adopted by many, such as Hulu, ABC.com, Fox.com, and Pandora, which all offer free media in return for the small burden of watching/listening to a commercial or two. I think that's great. In a sense, I find it to be the most social solution, since in a way it makes the rich sponsor the poor's needs.
The problem with this solution, however, is that it made free media accessible only where the sponsors have an interest in advertising. This is why Pandora, which used to be free to use world wide, is now accessible only with U.S. IP addresses. If you are located somewhere else in the world, you're blocked. No one's paying for your use of media, so you're out of the game. Most websites don't even allow these 'international' users to pay for their media. They are either forced to give up what they want, find the same thing off the internet (on CD's, DVD's and such), or download illegally. Even iTunes wouldn't sell for people outside the countries Apple feels comfortable engaging in electronic business in.
So only ten years after the big promise of the global village, the old order is slowly being restored, with the assistance of IP law and enforcement. The countries that produce the media are the countries that use it. Users who have the misfortune of living in countries who are traditionally buyers of international merchandise are forced into their old role as inactive, powerless, paying consumers. If this is the way we're headed, the 15 years or so in which the internet really had no boundaries would be just like the 60's free love - a sweet sweet dream.

Things that make you go 'ouch'.

Just read this. Makes you think about how horrible the power of the legal system can be sometimes.

On Nations and States: What does It Mean to be Russian?

In the past few days I had a few conversations with several people about those vague things called state, nation, and people. Some of it came up with regards to the Swiss referendum I talked about in my last post. A little bit more was in the contexts of those things that certain people tend to call 'un-American'. A friend is writing a paper about the way Russia refuses to treat people with HIV/AIDS because it is considered an evidence of moral turpitude, and therefore it is "not Russian"and undeserving of state funds. In all those cases, it seems as if the people, or maybe just some of the people, have this image of what it means to be part of a nation - something that is more than just being a citizen of the country.
Nations, in all those cases, hold certain values more important than others, and define themselves through them. "To be American means to be honest and hard working". "To be Russian means to be of moral character". "To be West-European is to be Christian, or at least to keep your religion a private matter." I can understand such sentences if they describe a reality. But then they should have started "some Americans are..." or "Most West Europeans are...". Otherwise, it is clear that they are not true statements. After all, not all Americans are honest, not all Russians are of good moral character, and so on.
I can also understand them as aspirations: "Americans/Russians/West Europeans should be...". But that's where things become dangerous. To what extent should countries educate their citizens to be one thing or the other? On one hand, I feel a liberal impulse to say that countries should be empty of any values - they should provide their citizens with fundamental services and that's it.
On the other hand, the Netherlands (or so I've heard) make immigrants sign a statement that they acknowledge the fact that in the Netherlands they are likely to see gay men show affection to each other and that they are ok with that. That sounds to me a lot like like the sentences we started with, something like "Dutch people are tolerant". This is more than just a descriptive statement - it is a demand of those who want to become Dutch. But the fact that it is a demand doesn't make it unacceptable. On the contrary, if one society has managed to create a safe haven for minorities, it makes sense for that state to protect itself from outsiders who would not be tolerant towards them. I see it as if the state weighs the well being and aspirations of gay citizens against those of intolerant immigrants (after all, the tolerant immigrants are naturalized) and rightly prefers those of its own citizens.
So it is clear that a state can educate to some values. I also think that education to good moral nature or honesty is just as valid an as targets as toleration. I even think that it's ok for a state to have a public religion. So where's the line? Why do the statements cited at the beginning of this post hurt the ear so much?
It seems to me that the answer is not in the permissive roles of the state, but in the state-nation relations. A state may attempt to educate its citizens. But pulling the population in one direction does not mean that whoever isn't pulled is not part of the nation. States may have values. Nations should not. So the United States may promote the values of honesty and hard work. But it must be recognized that you are part of the American nation even if you are lazy and deceitful, if only you are a citizen. (It's a little hard to use the Russian example since it's outrageous to think that HIV/AIDS says something of a person's morality, but let's assume for a minute that that was true -) Russia may encourage moral behaviour. But failure to follow doesn't make you not Russian. It only makes you an immoral Russian. If you hold citizenship, you deserve treatment. It's like saying that New York is a fun place, and that the municipality encourages the exciting and eventful image of the city. But if you live in New York, you're still a New Yorker even if you're boring.
It's easy to forget that. So many times minority groups are treated as a superfluous addition to 'the real thing'. As if France is for Christians, and Muslim immigrants are factually there, but don't really belong. They could have been anywhere else just the same. As if Israel is for Jews, and the Arabs accidentally live in the same territory, they deserve rights and all, but do not count as part of the people we talk about when we refer to 'Israelies'.
Lately, the Cohen brothers' magnificent movie 'A Serious Man' was distributed in Israel under the name 'A Good Jew'. Even if disregarding for a moment the artistic vandalism - did the translators feel that Israeli Arabs would not be a potential crowd for this movie? I mean, they might not be good Jews, but I'm sure they can be serious people.