Criticisms levelled in the 14th century reflect the thinking of that time and in the present age are as irrelevant as attacks on the Church and the Inquisition. True, the Pontiff did not portray Islam as intrinsically violent. He did not agree with the outrageous statement of the Christian emperor but also did not repudiate it. At a time when there is a widening rift between Muslims and Christians, allusion to these remarks was most inopportune. The Pope has caused deep offence to Muslims all over the world and moreover has unwittingly given ammunition to incorrigible Muslim baiters. The Pontiff should graciously make suitable amends.

Justice Scalia’s Dissents

Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court is a formidable member of the Court. He is a firm believer in the doctrine of Original Intent and does not favour expanding the Bill of Rights by including in it rights which are not expressly mentioned. He dislikes citations of foreign judgments, which in his view are irrelevant and indeed harmful in interpreting the US Constitution. However the strongest critic of Scalia will acknowledge his intellectual prowess and scholarship whilst disapproving the tone and language of his dissents.

In a case where the Supreme Court had to decide what is golf and who is a golfer, Scalia sarcastically questions: “Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question.” At times Scalia cannot control his exasperation and bursts out, “The Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognise.”

In the case of Morrison v. Olson, where the issue was of the allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts, Scalia, in his dissent, thunders: “Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.”

Scalia would possibly have an epileptic fit if he were acquainted with our Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the expression “life” in Article 21 and the judicial technique of deducing several fundamental rights from the reservoir of Article 21. The delegation of Indian judges and lawyers which is shortly visiting the US as part of the Indo-US exchange will have a hard time convincing Scalia about the merits and the utility of our Supreme Court judgments. It is hoped that none of them will be infected by Scalia’s illiberal judicial philosophy, which has no place in our Constitutional scheme and the existing socio-economic realities.

No free nudist shows

Owners of luxury cars in Moscow thought they will not have to pay for watching three women who took off their clothes and started washing each other at the man-made Balashikh beach on the Moscow River. They were so excited and engrossed by the sight of the nudist trio that they abandoned their expensive cars and took vantage positions for full enjoyment of what they thought was a free show. Unfortunately for them a gang of thieves obviously not interested in watching naked women made off with their luxury cars. These businessmen ruefully realised that in this materialistic world there is nothing for free. They paid a heavy price for their voyeuristic urges.