Expect a lot of these. Why? Because it's reading week, and even I can only take so much CPAC.
Officially ON NOTICE is the Quebec Soccer Association that lead to this debacle:
...I'm sorry...I can only assume I misheard you...but no, in fact, the girl (from the pic on the CBC site, I'm going to say she's 10-12) was ejected from the game, leading to a walkout of hers and several other teams. The Association claims that "...the ban on hijabs is to protect children from being accidentally strangled." *eyeroll* Right, because that's a common tragedy. K
...although I would hope that the girl was wearing a "sporty" hijab (e.g. the ones available at this Dutch site) i.e. one that involves minimal pins and hopefully velcro.
The Beeb reports: Court clears Serbia of genocide (for "Court" read "International Court of Justice").
I'm not 100% sure about this one. I'll have to read the decision itself...but it doesn't jive with anything else I've read of the period. I mean, if ICTY was all set to try the Serbian leader, then there
must have been was probably a high level of official collusion, n'est pas?
I suppose the ICJ may have chosen to follow the hilariously restrictive precedent it set in Nicaragua v. United States vis-a-vis finding a state complicit in crimes against humanity. Although oddly enough, this Wikipedia article on the case implies that the ICJ did find the US complicit, which is the polar opposite of what we're taught in Public International Law.
Of course, Serbia did not get off entirely. The ICJ found "...that Belgrade had violated international law by failing to prevent the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica." The ICJ also found that "'Financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation...'" That much I agree with. I mean, it would be one thing if there was a concrete damage requiring repair, but otherwise, what's the point? Monetary damages do not prevent this sort of thing. Treaty of Versaille, anyone?