How to use this Page

Each year when the nights start growing longer, everyone’s favourite rotund old man emerges from his wintry hideaway in the fastness of the North Pole and dashes around the globe in a red and white blur, delivering presents and generally spreading goodwill to the people of the world. Who can criticise such good intentions?

Despite this noble cause, Father Christmas is running an unconventional operation at best. At worst, the jolly old fool is flagrantly flaunting the law and his reckless behaviour should see him standing before a jury of his peers. Admittedly, it would be a challenge to find eleven other omnipotent, eternally-old, portly men with a penchant for elves.

Read on to find out four shocking laws Santa breaks every year. But be warned; this is just the tip of an iceberg of criminality that dates back centuries!

1) Illegal Surveillance – Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Even before the Christmas season rolls around, Santa is actively engaged in full-time surveillance of 1.9 billion children. This scale of intelligence-gathering makes the guys at GCHQ look like children with a magnifying glass. In the course of compiling this colossal “naughty-or-nice” list, Santa probably violates every single privacy law ever created, but he is definitely breaking the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Even if Secretary of State William Hague gave Santa the authorisation required to carry out intrusive surveillance on all the children of the UK, the British government would go weak-at-the-knees at the thought of being complicit in an intelligence scandal set to dwarf Merkel’s phone tap and permanently sour Anglo-global relations!

2) Drink Driving Laws – The Road Traffic Act 1988
Even conceding that Santa’s impressive paunch is due to a not-entirely-human ability to imbibe the massive quantity of mince pies and sherry left-out by eager children around the world, his rosy cheeks betray that while his tolerance is high, he can’t escape the effects of a two-unit-tipple in every single family household in the world. Assuming the world average is three children per family, Santa has to visit 630 million families! Half of the world’s population sadly live in poverty, so we can assume they don’t have the sherry on hand to keep Santa tanked-up during his rounds. Of the 316 million families from economically developed countries, 21 million abstain from alcohol on religious grounds. Taking that into account, that’s 295 million sherries left out for Santa, just shy of 600 million units. If we assume Santa weighs a conservative 240 pounds, that makes his blood alcohol a whopping 7,870,000%! Needless to say, by the time Santa finishes his quota he is most definitely over the limit and if he’s still breathing it’s safe to assume his sleigh flying ability is impaired.

3) Airspace Violations – Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944
While on his annual jaunt across the globe, Santa and his furry entourage enter the airspace of every single country. Even granting Saint Nick’s North Pole hideout the status of a sovereign state and signing him up to the convention, he only acquires the right to cross the 191 participating states and is obliged to make a landing if requested. There is no evidence of Santa ever touching down at the bequest of country and submitting to a customs search, which is unusual considering the quantity and variety of goods he is known to be carrying. Coupled with the fact that Santa’s definitely entered some questionable airspace during active conflicts and never been sighted or shot down, we can assume the red sleigh must be boasting next-generation stealth camouflage. Those tinkering elves are cleverer than they look!

4) Movement of Livestock – Animal Welfare Act 2006
Either Santa’s reindeer have incredible longevity or he’s running a full-scale reindeer breeding operation up there at the North Pole, as well as presiding over a city-sized workshop full of elves. Now assuming that Saint Nick has been at this game since his reported death in 270AD (when he slipped away to the North Pole and recruited his first elf) he’s been spreading cheer and making merry for 1744 years! A well-cared for reindeer can live as long as 20 years in captivity, which means that Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen and Rudolph have died at least 87 times and been repeatedly replaced by reindeers with the same name. A worrying thought!

However, if those reindeer weren’t well-cared for, Santa could be well into a triple-figure reindeer mortality count. The Animal Welfare Act of 2006 states that reindeers undergoing transportation should all be fitted with an ear tag listing their identifying reference number, in accordance with the guidelines stipulated by the BDFA (British Deer Farmers Association). Santa should also be filling out the requisite AML24 document and reporting all movements of his herds to the authorities. As reindeers act as carriers for tuberculosis and ‘foot and mouth’ disease, failure to abide by these rules can pose a significant health risk. With such a laissez-faire attitude to animal welfare, Nick could be at the helm of animal welfare cover-up the likes of which have never been seen… and Rudolph’s red nose is obviously a symptom of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis.

Headline image credit: Santa Claus and Reindeer. Public domain via Pixabay.

The post Santa Claus breaks the law every year appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• 10 fun facts about sleigh bells
• Selfies and model bottoms: monkeying around with intellectual property rights
• Christmas crime films

 

By Mark Bevir

Governance, governance everywhere – why has the word “governance” become so common? One reason is that many people believe that the state no longer matters, or at least the state matters far less than it used to. Even politicians often tell us that the state can’t do much. They say they have no choice about many policies. The global economy compels them to introduce austerity programs. The need for competitiveness requires them to contract-out public services, including some prisons in the US.

If the state isn’t ruling through government institutions, then presumably there is a more diffuse form of governance involving various actors. So, “governance” is a broader term than “state” or “government”. Governance refers to all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market, or network, whether over a family, corporation, or territory, and whether by laws, norms, power, or language. Governance focuses not only on the state and its institutions but also on the creation of rule and order in social practices.

Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament

The rise of the word “governance” as an alternative to “government” reflects some of the most important social and political trends of recent times. Social scientists sometimes talk of the hollowing-out of the state. The state has been weakened from above by the rise of regional blocs like the European Union and by the global economy. The state has been weakened from below by the use of contracts and partnerships that involve other organizations in the delivery of public services. Globalization and the transformation of the public sector mean that the state cannot dictate or coordinate public policy. The state depends in part on global, transnational, private, and voluntary sector organizations to implement many of its policies. Further, the state is rarely able to control or command these other actors. The state has to negotiate with them as best it can, and often it has little bargaining power.

But, although the role of the state has changed, these changes do not necessarily mean that the state is less important. An alternative perspective might suggest that the state has simply changed the way it acts. From this viewpoint, the state has adopted more indirect tools of governing but these are just as effective – perhaps even more so – than the ones they replaced. Whereas the state used to govern directly through bureaucratic agencies, today it governs indirectly through, for example, contracts, regulations, and targets. Perhaps, therefore, the state has not been hollowed-out so much as come to focus on meta-governance, that is, the governance of the other organizations in the markets and networks that now seem to govern us.

The hollow state and meta-governance appear to be competing descriptions of today’s politics. If we say the state has been hollowed out, we seem to imply it no longer matters. If we say the state is the key to meta-governance, we seem to imply it retains the central role in deciding public policy. Perhaps, however, the two descriptions are compatible with one another. The real lesson of the rise of the word “governance” might be that there is something wrong with our very concept of the state.

All too often people evoke the state as if it were some kind of monolithic entity. They say that “the state did something” or that “state power lay behind something”. However, the state is not a person capable of acting; rather, the state consists of various people who do not always not act in a manner consistent with one another. “The state” contains a vast range of different people in various agencies, with various relationships acting in various ways for various purposes and in accord with various beliefs. Far from being a monolithic entity that acts with one mind, the state contains within it all kinds of contests and misunderstandings.

Descriptions of a hollow state tell us that policymakers have actively tried to replace bureaucracies with markets and networks. They evoke complex policy environments in which central government departments are not necessarily the most important actors let alone the only ones. Descriptions of meta-governance tell us that policymakers introduced markets and networks as tools by which they hoped to get certain ends. They evoke the ways central government departments act in complex policy environments.

When we see the word “governance”, it should remind us that the state is an abstraction based on diverse and contested patterns of concrete activity. State action and state power do not fit one neat pattern – neither that of hollowing-out or meta-governance. Presidents, prime ministers, legislators, civil servants, and street level bureaucrats can all sometimes make a difference, but the state is stateless, for it has no essence.

Mark Bevir is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of several books including Governance: A Very Short Introduction (2012) and  The State as Cultural Practice (2010). He is also the editor or co-editor of 10 books, including a two volume Encyclopaedia of Governance (2007). He founded the undergraduate course on ‘Theories of Governance’ at Berkeley and teaches a graduate course on ‘Strategies of Contemporary Governance’.

The Very Short Introductions (VSI) series combines a small format with authoritative analysis and big ideas for hundreds of topic areas. Written by our expert authors, these books can change the way you think about the things that interest you and are the perfect introduction to subjects you previously knew nothing about. Grow your knowledge with OUPblog and the VSI series every Friday!

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law and politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only VSI articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

Image Credit: Martin Schulz during the election camapign in 2009. Creative Commons Licence – Mettmann. (via Wikimedia Commons)

The post Does the state still matter? appeared first on OUPblog.

“Copyright for Librarians is a joint project of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL), a consortium of libraries from 50 countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. The goal of the project is to provide librarians in developing and transitional countries information concerning copyright law.” Here’s the press release.

Normally I’m not much of a joiner, but… “EFF is gathering a group of authors (or their heirs or assigns) who are concerned about the Google Book Search settlement and its effect on the privacy and anonymity of readers. This page provides basic information for authors and publishers who are considering whether to join our group.”

You can join too, if you’d like.

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the concept of law as: “a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. The best and most agreed-upon laws are those that are designed to protect the rights and well-being of the citizens in the country or place where they are enforced. However, some laws are just plain dumb.

Here are the Top Ten Dumbest Laws (via dumblaws.com):

10. Donkeys cannot be kept in the bathtub in states such as Georgia and Arizona.

What I have to ask is: why would this even need to be a law? I understand that a single state might have a quirky official who thinks it’s amusing or necessary…but more than one state having this law is just ludicrous.

9. Lollipops are illegal in the great state of Washington.

What can be so bad about a simple, innocent lollipop? Are lollipops really all that bad? Apparently an official in Washington thinks/thought so.

8. It is illegal for more than five women to live in the same house in Ohio.

This law was obviously designed to help cut down on brothels. However, what happens if parents have five or more daughters living at home? Do they have to have a special permit or something? Or do they have to evict one of the elder ones if a new baby comes along and happens to be a girl?

7. It is illegal to wear a mask of any kind in public in Alabama.

Image via Wikipedia

Mask is such a board term, it could really be construed to me costume masks and health masks. As we all know, the attention surrounding Swine Flu caused everyone and their mom to go out and buy health masks and wear them around town.

Furthermore, I live in Alabama. I can honestly say this law isn’t really enforced. Little kids where masks on Halloween every year. In fact, Halloween isn’t the only exclusion. People go to masked balls all the time and I’ve never heard of a raid at such parties.

6. Anyone who flirts in the state of New York can be charged a $25 fine.

It’s a sad day when flirting is a crime. But at some point, some lawmaker in New York certainly thought so.

5. It is illegal to walk around town with an ice cream cone in your back pocket in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

Image via Wikipedia

This is, perhaps, one of the most ridiculous laws in the country. The real crime is how wide-spread it is. Several states have a law regarding the prohibition of walking around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket. And all I have to ask is: why was this ever an issue in the first place? I know I wouldn’t want my butt to be sticky and cold.

4. Every man must carry a rifle to church on Sunday in Massachusetts.

This is one of the more hilarious church laws out there and I have to wonder where it came from. Was it perhaps to keep away the Quakers and witches? (Being a Friend or a witch is still illegal in the state of Massachusetts.)

3. It is illegal for a woman to do her own hair in Oklahoma, unless she has a beauty license from the state.

I know women from Oklahoma and surely this law isn’t enforced. If it were, every woman in Oklahoma would be walking around with a rat’s nest in her greasy hair (assuming that “doing hair” also entails washing).

2. Montana declares that it’s a felony for a wife to open her husband’s mail.

Yet it is not a felony for a husband to open his wife’s mail. This is merely one of many US state laws that throw sexual equality out the window.

1. Minnesota actually has a law banning a person from crossing the state lines with a duck on top of their head.

Personally, I find this law to be the most hilariously astounding. First of all, how would you even get a duck to stay still long enough on your head to cross the state line? Secondly, why would you want to?

These are all real laws that are (hopefully) written for real reasons. And however moronic they sound, remember: thousands (if not millions) of tax dollars went into creating them.

Some states have repealed laws that they realized were either stupid, unconstitutional, or no longer applied. Oklahoma, for instance, finally legalized tattoos in 2006. To this day, tattoos remain illegal in certain other states. So, the real question is: will more tax dollars have to be sent repealing laws that are, for lack of better word, dumb?

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the concept of law as: “a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. The best and most agreed-upon laws are those that are designed to protect the rights and well-being of the citizens in the country or place where they are enforced. However, some laws are just plain dumb.

Here are the Top Ten Dumbest Laws (via dumblaws.com):

10. Donkeys cannot be kept in the bathtub in states such as Georgia and Arizona.

What I have to ask is: why would this even need to be a law? I understand that a single state might have a quirky official who thinks it’s amusing or necessary…but more than one state having this law is just ludicrous.

9. Lollipops are illegal in the great state of Washington.

What can be so bad about a simple, innocent lollipop? Are lollipops really all that bad? Apparently an official in Washington thinks/thought so.

8. It is illegal for more than five women to live in the same house in Ohio.

This law was obviously designed to help cut down on brothels. However, what happens if parents have five or more daughters living at home? Do they have to have a special permit or something? Or do they have to evict one of the elder ones if a new baby comes along and happens to be a girl?

7. It is illegal to wear a mask of any kind in public in Alabama.

Image via Wikipedia

Mask is such a board term, it could really be construed to me costume masks and health masks. As we all know, the attention surrounding Swine Flu caused everyone and their mom to go out and buy health masks and wear them around town.

Furthermore, I live in Alabama. I can honestly say this law isn’t really enforced. Little kids where masks on Halloween every year. In fact, Halloween isn’t the only exclusion. People go to masked balls all the time and I’ve never heard of a raid at such parties.

6. Anyone who flirts in the state of New York can be charged a $25 fine.

It’s a sad day when flirting is a crime. But at some point, some lawmaker in New York certainly thought so.

5. It is illegal to walk around town with an ice cream cone in your back pocket in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

Image via Wikipedia

This is, perhaps, one of the most ridiculous laws in the country. The real crime is how wide-spread it is. Several states have a law regarding the prohibition of walking around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket. And all I have to ask is: why was this ever an issue in the first place? I know I wouldn’t want my butt to be sticky and cold.

4. Every man must carry a rifle to church on Sunday in Massachusetts.

This is one of the more hilarious church laws out there and I have to wonder where it came from. Was it perhaps to keep away the Quakers and witches? (Being a Friend or a witch is still illegal in the state of Massachusetts.)

3. It is illegal for a woman to do her own hair in Oklahoma, unless she has a beauty license from the state.

I know women from Oklahoma and surely this law isn’t enforced. If it were, every woman in Oklahoma would be walking around with a rat’s nest in her greasy hair (assuming that “doing hair” also entails washing).

2. Montana declares that it’s a felony for a wife to open her husband’s mail.

Yet it is not a felony for a husband to open his wife’s mail. This is merely one of many US state laws that throw sexual equality out the window.

1. Minnesota actually has a law banning a person from crossing the state lines with a duck on top of their head.

Personally, I find this law to be the most hilariously astounding. First of all, how would you even get a duck to stay still long enough on your head to cross the state line? Secondly, why would you want to?

These are all real laws that are (hopefully) written for real reasons. And however moronic they sound, remember: thousands (if not millions) of tax dollars went into creating them.

Some states have repealed laws that they realized were either stupid, unconstitutional, or no longer applied. Oklahoma, for instance, finally legalized tattoos in 2006. To this day, tattoos remain illegal in certain other states. So, the real question is: will more tax dollars have to be sent repealing laws that are, for lack of better word, dumb?

I read it first on Librarian in Black but liked the coverage of the Mercury News. The San Jose Public Library decided to not add filters to the public library computers after a year and a half of debate. One of the points made by the article is that startup costs to add filters would be about $90,000 with annual maintenance costs of $5,000. You can read the final policy statement here (pdf). In includes the fact that, out of almost 1.4 million computer login sessions at SJ Public Libraries (excluding the King Library), library staff received two complaints of lewd behavior and only one complaint to staff about pornography viewing. The King Library, the main library, had a similar number of login sessions and 14 complaints about pornography viewing.

The government thinks books are a danger to children and mandates destruction of millions of kids' books starting February 10th, 2009. It sounds like the plot form a science fiction novel, but new regulations are all too real.

Happy Friday to all! Below are some links to help you through the day.  See you Monday!

An interview with Orhan Pamuk.

Is content king?

Are embryos morally equal to people? (more…)

Share This