Suchergebnisse

Against the usual argument heard most frequently on the left, that there is no subject for a radical politics together with its form of political mobilization, there is - but in the absence of a radical leftist project, this subject has in the past transferred, and in many instances is still transferring, his/her support to the radical politics on offer from the other end of the ideological spectrum. The combination of on the one hand a globally expanding industrial reserve army, generating ever more intense competition in the labour markets of capitalism, and on the other the endorsement by many on the left not of class but rather of non-class identities espoused by the `new' populist postmodernism, has fuelled what can only be described as a perfect storm, politically speaking

Abortion and equality are a common pairing; courts as well as legal scholars have noted the importance of abortion and a woman's ability to control whether and when she has children to her ability to participate fully and equally in society. Abortion and administrative regulation, on the other hand, are a more unusual combination. Most restrictions on abortion are legislatively imposed, while guarantees of reproductive freedom are constitutionally derived, so administrative law does not frequently figure in debates about access to abortion.

With 'Unmasking Administrative Evil', Guy Adams and Danny Balfour maintain that administrative evil, or destructiveness, is inherent in modern public administration.

The current laws regarding experimentation upon animals should be drastically revised. These laws permit virtually unrestricted experimentation on animals without regard to the benefits to be obtained from such experimentation, and without regard to the consequences of such experimentation upon the subject animal. Legislation constituting a two-step jump from the current laws is needed: laws sanctioning and requiring animal experimentation should be repealed; and laws significantly restricting acceptable experimentation should be enacted. The principle underlying this proposal for change is straightforward: Nonhuman animals, like human animals, have interests in the integrity of their bodies which deserve legal protection. Only by repealing the present laws and enacting new legislation can these interests be protected. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer (1975) stated why an animal's interest, like a person's interest, in the integrity of its body deserves legal protection: "If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration." However, while the law regarding experimentation on humans reflects the need to consider the subject's sentience (the capacity to suffer and/or experience enjoyment), the law regarding experimentation on animals ignores the experiment's likely impact upon the subject animal.