a permanent property of relations between Jews and
non-Jews, there are periods and places in which it appears obsolete, a
zombie-concept in the language of cosmopolitanism, only to re-emerge in surprising
new forms. 6 Modern antisemitism has
long historical antecedents, but what was more urgent than reviewing its
pre-history was to think about why Jews were once again defined as a
‘question’ in modern times and how this was tied up with the concerns
was also a patron of Association activities,
had joint responsibility. 16 Although ZMA leadership always comprised a
British (often non-medical) official, 17 it was not absorbed into the British colonial
administration until 1947, principally because its reliance on external
patronage would have been at risk if the British assumed dominance.
The British contributed an annual grant (initially 4
conscientious doctor who had acted
‘within the professionally accepted limits of paediatric practice’.62
Arthur also received public support from Jonathan Glover, who
wrote in the London Review of Books that ‘a verdict of guilty
would have been a morally undeserved calamity’.63 Glover used
the Arthur case to reiterate the main points of his 1977 book
Causing Death and Saving Lives, exploring the moral implications
of non-treatment and promoting the benefits of ‘applied ethics’.
He stressed that deciding whether or not to treat disabled babies
was ‘not simply a legal or
. That research
across a range of fields suggests there are links between positions of
power, non-maternal instincts and dangerous sexual promiscuity
illuminates the sociopolitical investment in maintaining the myth of
biologically determined gender ideologies. These ideologies, enforced by
the mother’s position as nurturer or deviant, are equally
informed by the sexual politics of power and desire as
Hannah Jones, Yasmin Gunaratnam, Gargi Bhattacharyya, William Davies, Sukhwant Dhaliwal, Emma Jackson and Roiyah Saltus
which immigration and immigration enforcement emerge as a problem
are continually evolving. This includes not only how categories of
‘them’ and ‘us’ are open to revision but also how these
categories can be mediated by moments of, and movements between, indifference,
welcome, compassion and conviviality (see Brah, 2012/1999 ; Jones and Jackson, 2014 ).
In the months following the Paris attacks, Britain's political
debate increasingly focused
section of the left in opposing any such divisive expressions of German
nationalism. 9 They recognised the
existence of national distinctions but refused to give them privileged status and
challenged the dichotomy between ‘universal’ and
‘non-historic’ nations (‘us’ and ‘them’). 10
After Marx, however, orthodox Marxism took a nationalist turn, which
was fateful in terms of its understanding of the Jewish question. In a context in
. Vladimir’s desperate comments
at the end of each act make this clear – the words reflect a dissociated
state, a fear of non-recognition, or a fear that any recognition given will
not endure. From Act I:
Boy: What am I to say to Mr Godot, sir?
Vladimir: Tell him … (he hesitates) … tell him you saw us.
(Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you? (52)
Boy: What am I to tell Mr Godot, sir?
Vladimir: Tell him … (he hesitates) … tell him you saw me and that … (he
hesitates) … that you saw me.
( […] With sudden violence.) You’re sure you saw me, you won’t
come tomorrow and
insolvency contagions (since the Asian contagion wreaked havoc on
solid borrowers). It is not clear how the IMF would determine limits on
how much could be loaned, or what the appropriate insurance fee would be.
Soros has yet to provide more speciﬁcs for his global central bank (although
he does not use the term). As it stands now, Soros’s idea of an international
public insurance corporation seems to be a non-starter.
Claiming that the IMF and the World Bank have become “increasingly duplicative,” James Burnham (1999) calls for the merger of the two
Humanities Corner of the Australian Humanities Review, under the revised
title ‘Nature in the Active Voice’. Here, Plumwood differentiated her depth
model of sustainability from conventional constructions of both ‘deep
ecology’, with its prioritisation of ‘wilderness’ preservation, and ‘shallow
ecology’, with its privileging of exclusively human interests. Instead, she
proposed a ‘mixed framework’ that reveals how ‘human-centredness can
have severe costs for humans as well as non-humans’ (2009: 116). Rejecting the ‘pernicious false-choice’ of the deep/shallow divide
discussion, however, is that the so-called
Italy: Roman ‘tyranny’ and radical Catholic opposition
deist movement was nowhere more conspicuous by its absence than
in the Italian peninsula, where the critique of perceived papal despotism and superstition was left in the the surprisingly effective
hands of radical Catholics. The discussion will, therefore, focus little on the absence of deists and concentrate on examining the radical Catholic challenge and its general context.
By some, Jansenists have been regarded as non-representative
of the general Catholic reforming