Freedom carries responsibility

Published by The Star Online on 30 November 2011.

DECEMBER 10 marks the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR).

The first Article of the Declaration contains the stirring proclamation that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

Many important moral ideals can be derived from this simple but eloquent statement.

Universality: All human beings are entitled to some core human rights. These rights transcend time, territory, race, religion, colour, caste, creed, gender or nationality. Human rights represent universal standards for evaluating national laws and institutions.

Born free: Human rights are inherent. They belong to us by virtue of our birth as a human being. They do not depend on the existence of a state or a constitution. They enjoy authority superior to and independent of government.

Fundamental rights are individual as well as collective in their nature. They belong to human beings as individuals as well as to nations and human groups as collective entities.

Human rights are essential conditions for a free and democratic society. They are principles of liberty and justice without which a fair and enlightened system of government would be impossible.

Equality: Though inequalities are a fact of life, the law must hitch itself to stars. It must peg its provisions to ideals distilled from philosophy and morality.

The law must ban religious, racial, tribal and gender discrimination and call for equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Indeed, over the last few centuries, the struggle for equality has reached many important milestones.

Religious persecution has been outlawed. Racial discrimination has collapsed in South Africa and the United States. Many strides have been made in gender equality.

However, other goals still beckon. Poverty is pervasive and remains the biggest threat to human dignity.

In the area of employment and work, hierarchies exist and glaring income disparities are widespread. Globalisation is creating vast disparities between the rich North and the impoverished South. Colonialism, built on a racist assumption of the superiority of some people over others, rears its ugly head again.

Rights and dignities: The UDHR talks of “dignity” and “rights”. Both are important but it is necessary to distinguish between the two.

A right is a legitimate authority to be, to do or to have. Most rights are necessary and supportable. But the exercise or abuse of some rights may be incompatible with the preservation of human dignity.

For instance, if a person by his/her own volition chooses to lead the life of a beggar and to sleep on the pavements or to become a sex worker, that may be his/her right. But it diminishes the worth and dignity of the human personality. For this reason many philosophers emphasise that dignity is more important than rights.

The notion of dignity implies that an individual owes a duty to himself not to compromise his self-esteem and destroy his worth.

Right to dignity also requires that the state must take vigorous affirmative action to preserve human dignity by eradicating poverty, starvation and illiteracy.

The state must be actively invol-ved in efforts to stamp out all legal, social, economic and cultural conditions (like caste system, female circumcision) that destroy human dignity.

Thus, slaves, sex workers, circus dwarfs, and surrogate mothers can be restrained by the law from sacrificing their dignity even if they have a personal right to compromise their rights.

Reason and conscience: In the pursuit of our rights and our vision of a good life, we must maintain a sense of balance, moderation and equilibrium. We must avoid the temptation to conform to non-conformity.

We must know when to say “no” to drugs, cigarettes, free sex and advertisements which tempt us to shop till we drop in an excessively consumerist society.

Rights must be exercised with responsibility. Responsibility is the inevitable consequence of freedom.

We must accept the limitations of our freedom. Freedom is not an end in itself. Freedom per se has no value. It is what freedom is for. It is the use to which it is put and the sense of responsibility with which it is exercised.

If liberty is exercised without concern for the consequences to oneself and to society, then the line between liberty and anarchy is crossed. P eople are not always right about the exercise of their rights.

Rights must go hand in hand with duties. Free speech, for example, carries with it a duty to listen.

Our personal rights carry with them duties to oneself, to one’s family, to one’s community, to one’s country and to the larger world we inhabit.

Everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefits received.

Unfortunately, too often duty is seen as the thing we expect from others.

Brotherhood: We should treat all other human beings as our brothers. We should give a little bit of ourselves, our time, talent and resources to others. We have a moral duty to help those less fortunate than us.

We should do to others what we wish to be done to us. In all areas of discord, we should put ourselves in the shoes of others, identify with their pain and problems and try to see issues through their eyes.

To be truly objective, we should be prepared to be subjective from another person’s point of view.

We should look for the best in others. We should avoid stereotypes and shun extremism. Extremism reflects awareness of only one narrow perspective.

The first function of freedom should be to free somebody else. We should protect and cherish not only our rights but the rights of others.

Regrettably this is not what happens around the world.

Decent human beings must stand up and be counted and struggle to throw off the chains that bind their fellow beings.

When that happens, when a just cause reaches its floodtide, whatever stands in the way falls before its overwhelming force.

There is in this world no such force as the force of a human being determined to rise. The human soul cannot be permanently chained.

This is the lesson of history and the implicit message of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM & Visiting Professor at USM.

Walk For Freedom 2011

Lawyers end march, say to keep up pressure on assembly law

The Bar Council warned the Najib administration today it will “continue knocking on the doors of Parliament” if the Peaceful Assembly Bill is passed without public consultation.

Malaysian Bar President Lim Chee Wee urged the government to consider the council’s proposed alternative to the government’s original Bill, which he described as an “unjust law made in haste ... which will impose unreasonable and disproportionate fetters on freedom of assembly”.

“The Bar will continue knocking on the doors of Parliament if the Bill makes it to the statute books in its current form. We will not give up hope,” he vowed during a brief press conference in Parliament here.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/lawyers-end-march-say-to-keep-up-pressure-on-assembly-law

Bar Council presents alternative assembly bill

The Bar Council has made public its alternative to the controversial Peaceful Assembly Bill, saying it takes “significantly different approaches” from the one the Dewan Rakyat passed today.

The council said in a media statement that its draft, also called the Peaceful Assembly Bill, complied with international conventions. It gives every person, regardless of age, the right to assemble peacefully.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/11/29/bar-council-presents-alternative-assembly-bill/

More than 2,000 lawyers gather to protest Assembly Bill

More than 2,000 lawyers from the 14,000-strong Bar Council turned up for the much-anticipated protest despite the short notice given. They began begin their 2.5km 'Walk for Freedom' to Parliament at around 12.30pm.

On reaching the august House, president of the Bar Lim Chee Wee and 9 others were allowed into the lobby. They handed over a copy of the Bar's alternative Bill to Deputy Minister Liew Vui Kong, plus a letter reiterating their call to MPs to vote wisely on the Bill.

“We are not anti-government or pro-opposition. We are anti-injustice and anti-unconstitutionality. We are pro-justice and pro-rule of law. We have always worked closely with the government,” Lim said.

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=23657:more-than-2000-lawyers-gather-to-protest-assembly-bill-walk-to-begin-soon&Itemid=2

Lawyers march against Assembly Bill

More than 1,000 members of the Bar Council marched to the Dewan Rakyat today to protest the proposed the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011.

Led by their president Lim Chee Wee, they asked MPs not to pass the controversial Bill, claiming that it would curtail the right to peaceful assembly.

Lim said that Malaysia was founded on public demonstrations, citing founding father Onn Jaafar’s leading of the Malayan Union against the British.

He also pleaded to the MPs not to rid Malaysians the right to assemble peacefully “with the stroke of a pen”.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/11/29/lawyers-march-against-assembly-bill/

Malaysia passes ban on street protests

Malaysian and international rights groups describe it as repressive because it bans street rallies and imposes tough restrictions and penalties for demonstrators.

The law was announced only last week, and some critics say the vote was rushed without proper public consultation.

About 500 lawyers and their supporters marched to parliament hours before the vote, urging lawmakers to reject the bill and chanting "freedom to the people'' before police stopped most of them from entering the complex.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2011/11/201111299054994173.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount#.TtTR3pmqa6A.facebook

Malaysia’s ruling coalition advances ban on street protests criticized as repressive

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s ruling coalition says the Peaceful Assembly Act is intended to strike a balance between public order and the right to peaceful assembly. The act passed easily in Parliament’s lower house after the boycott, and the law is expected to be enforced after Parliament’s upper house, also dominated by the National Front coalition, approves it as early as next month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/500-malaysian-lawyers-activists-stage-protest-march-against-govt-plan-to-ban-street-ralllies/2011/11/29/gIQA2il36N_story.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Opposition MPs walk out, refuse to vote on Peaceful Assembly Bill

Opposition MPs staged a walkout during the debate on the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 on Tuesday, claiming that the Government was rushing the bill through.

The entire bench stood and left the House at around 3pm after the Speaker allowed the debate to continue despite calls for it to be suspended and for the bill to be referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/11/29/nation/20111129153616&sec=nation

Peaceful Assembly Bill passed

KUALA LUMPUR: The Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 was passed by Parliament Tuesday after six amendments were made to the bill.

The bill was passed with no dissenting votes after the Opposition refused to take part in the debate and staged a walkout.

The walk-out was staged before Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri tabled six amendments to the bill.

The bill was passed before Deputy Speaker Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar.

Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia had allowed just three Opposition MPs to debate the proposed law.

The Opposition had asked for it to be retracted and put before a Parliamentary Select Committee for review.

The six changes include Sub-Clause 9 (1), where the 30-day notice period required to be given to the police was changed to 10 days.

Under Clause 12 (b), objections against a proposed assembly must be lodged with the police in writing within 48 hours, instead of five days.

For Clause 14, the change included the provision for police to give a reply to organisers within five days instead of 12.

In Clause 16(a), appeal against the rejection of an application or the exercise of police discretionary orders to organisers can be done within 48 hours of receipt, instead of four days while under Clause 16(b), the Home Minister is to answer any appeals within 48 hours of receipt instead of six days.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/11/29/nation/20111129164017&sec=nation

Hello MP, kami sedang perhatikan cara awak undi

Meminjam konsep bekas presiden Majlis Peguam, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan yang mahu setiap ahli parlimen "bertanggungjawab kepada pengundi mereka", warga maya melancarkan kempen mengingatkan wakil rakyat mereka bahawa corak pengundian mereka berhubung rang undang-undang kontroversi itu akan juga ditentukan pada pilihan raya akan datang.

Melalui kempen yang dikenali sebagai '#HelloMP' warga maya memuat-naikkan gambar mereka memegang sehelai kertas dengan nama kawasan pilihan raya dan wakil rakyat, menggesa mereka menolak rang undang-undang itu di Facebook.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/182714

Govt paranoid, says Ambiga

BERSIH chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan claims the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 is a "paranoid" Bill.

Asked if the proposed legislation was a retaliation against Bersih 2.0, she said: "I do not know whether it is a direct retaliation.

"I think it is a paranoid Bill. I think the government seems to fear the idea of the rakyat expressing themselves."

Ambiga said this before the Bar Council organised walk from Lake Gardens to Parliament building yesterday.

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/86739-bar-courting-trouble

A Christian Response to Gay Bullying

Published by Christianity Today on 12 October 2011.

A few weeks ago, Jamey Rodemeyer was found dead by his parents in their Buffalo, New York, home. But Rodemeyer’s death was different. The 14-year-old was one of many young people who have committed suicide over bullying and taunting over sexuality. Last year, Tyler Clementijumped off the George Washington Bridge in New York after a roommate secretly filmed him in a sexual encounter with another male student and posted it online. Asher Brown and Seth Walsh committed suicide after facing relentless taunting for being gay. And Sladjana Vidovicwas one of five students from an Ohio high school to commit suicide in the course of a year.

The suicides of teenagers due to bullying, especially over homosexuality, have led to an outcry in the media, fueling many efforts to fight bullying on all fronts. Ellen Degeneres has taken up the fight; nearly every week, it seems, the comedian tackles the subject on her show. Her website has a page devoted to fighting bullying in schools, including everything from celebrity videos about bullying to messages about the importance of equality in the fight against bullying. A few weeks ago, in an interview with Chaz Bono, she compared the outcry over his participation inDancing With the Stars to bullying that goes on in schools. Kids learn from their parents, Ellen said,

. . . until adults take responsibility for how we treat one another, until we see that we are doing the same thing we are asking kids not to do at school — politicians do it, adults do it — to say that he [Bono] is different and he is wrong and to make something of it, shame on us for doing that and being an example for kids.

After the suicides of Clementi, Brown, and Walsh, Degeneres posted a video in which she expressed grief and outrage that anyone would feel so alone that suicide seemed their only option. She said intolerance of homosexuality is the foundation for today’s bullying: “There are messages everywhere that validate this kind of bullying and taunting and we have to make it stop. We can’t let intolerance and ignorance take another kid’s life.” She concluded that “things will get easier, peoples’ minds will change, and you should be alive to see it.”

Degeneres’s comments give Christians much to think about. When any person commits suicide, it’s a tragedy, one Christians especially should grieve, given the person’s God-given dignity and irreplaceable presence in others’ lives. Bullying, taunting, and physical or emotional abuse is not to be tolerated by believers who see it happening, regardless of who is being bullied. Nevertheless, Ellen’s comments present some troubling assertions — namely, that bullying is simply any moral judgment about another person’s behavior.

It’s a fine line between bullying and tolerance, and Christians have made blunders on both sides. Some have seemed to put homosexuality into its own category of sinfulness, as if it takes a special kind of atonement to make clean. This has only added fuel to the pro-tolerance fire. In an effort to reverse these effects, some Christians have swung the pendulum too far, ignoring Scripture’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior in favor of a widely embracing, culturally acceptable sexual ethic.

Christians must bridge the gap between bullying and the cry for tolerance. We cannot turn a blind eye to sinful behavior of any sort, whether it’s homosexual behavior or hateful bullying. And we also must clearly define bullying, focusing on physical and verbal abuse rather than simple disagreement with another’s actions.

After Clementi’s death, Albert Mohler wrote an article lamenting that four young men had committed suicide in one month. He wrote, “Tyler joined Billy, Seth, and Asher as tragic evidence of the dangerous intersection of sexual confusion, hateful classmates, and the wide-open world of social media. These boys simply ran out of the emotional ability to face life, crushed by the burden of secrets and the bullying of their peers.” What was once a fight in the hallway or a rumor passed in a classroom note has become an online epidemic. A girl who sends a text message to a boy at school can be an internet sensation by the end of the day. A young man who has a sexual encounter with another young man can be broadcast unbeknownst to him by a cruel college roommate. This is a problem and a tragedy, especially when it leads to death.

Yet the answer is not a ceasefire on all moral pronouncements in the public square. Degeneres’s definition of bullying, like many in the LGBT community, assumes that if we simply normalize homosexuality, bullying over sexual orientation will cease. As Christians, it’s more complicated than that. In order to be faithful to what God says, we must resist the notion that “tolerance” will solve the bullying problem. Living outside God’s design for sexuality, no matter the specifics, has implications for this life and for eternity.

Christians should be the first to offer a healing hope for the victim of senseless bullying of any kind. As Mohler asked, “Was there no one to step between Tyler Clementi and that bridge? Was there no friend, classmate, or trusted adult who had the courage and compassion to reach into his life and offer hope?”

Yet as Christians, we must have the heart of Jesus, who was willing to do the unpopular in order to free them from eternal judgment for their sin. We must never resort to hateful tactics and unkind words to prove our point, simply mimicking the meanness that permeates our schools. When Christians offer a counter voice to the actions of their peers, maybe then will our bullied friends and neighbors see an alternative to the seeming only option of a desperate suicide.

Courtney Reissig is a pastor's wife and freelance writer/blogger. She has written for the Gospel Coalition's book review site, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. She blogs regularly at In View of God's Mercy.

The Rhetoric of Chastity: Making Abstinence Sexy

Communications expert Christine Gardner reveals what makes abstinence campaigns work.

Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey | posted 11/18/2011 09:52AM Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today.

Evangelical abstinence campaigns have shifted their emphasis from "just say no" to sex before marriage to "just say yes"—within marriage, that is, says Christine Gardner. In Making Chastity Sexy (University of California Press), the Wheaton College communications professor examines the rhetoric of three evangelical abstinence organizations, comparing them with an abstinence campaign in sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV/AIDS is a common threat. Christianity Today online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey spoke with Gardner about the larger ideas communicated to young people in the campaign.

What did you find upon examining the language of the U.S. abstinence movement?

This is a study of rhetoric in the classical sense—the study of the art of persuasion, focusing on three very specific church-related evangelical campaigns. These groups are using a savvy rhetorical strategy: They are using sex to sell abstinence. They are using the very thing they are prohibiting to admonish young people to wait. They are saying, "If you are abstinent now, you will have amazing sex when you are married." The argument then becomes a promise of marriage.

What are the limitations of this approach?

Such campaigns don't address the challenges of singleness. Also, what if you are gay? What if you do get married, but sex isn't all it's cracked up to be? There are many challenges with this kind of strategy, as savvy and persuasive as it is.

Evangelicals are quite good at interacting with secular culture. We have a long history of adapting secular forms for religious ends. The language of self-gratification in "sexy abstinence" is showing the ability of evangelicals to speak the language of the culture.

But in doing so, are we actually transforming it?

You looked at how Africans view abstinence, saying they "saw their bodies as temples of the Lord and themselves as caretakers … a more deeply theological response."

I assumed that HIV/AIDS would be the big motivator for [African] young people to commit to abstinence. It is big, but I found this other undercurrent that was deeply theological. A leader of one of the programs told me that yes, they do talk about AIDS as a motivator for young people to commit to abstinence, but they noted that "you can get malaria and die, too." AIDS is not as much of a motivator as a Western researcher coming in would have assumed.

How do the American and African messages compare?

Americans have turned a prohibition into a more positive admonition. In this case, pleasing God is an end in itself. Pleasing God will have tangible benefits. In Kenya and Rwanda, it was more of a combination: "Avoid death. Avoid HIV/AIDS, and do it out of fear of God, because he wants you to do this."

'I'm concerned that we may be raising a generation of abstinent teens but setting them up for divorce.'—Christine Gardner

Also, in the places I visited in Africa, the condom is viewed as a medical device, a tool for saving lives. It is not viewed as a tool for promiscuity, as evangelicals in this country largely view it. The same little piece of latex is described so radically differently by evangelicals in two different cultural contexts.

How does Western rhetoric translate to the African context?

It offers an understanding of self and empowers young people, especially women, to respect their bodies. This is, of course, fabulous and indeed, very biblical. But the language of individualism and self-gratification can seep in and pose a problem.

You say that U.S. evangelicals are strange bedfellows with feminists when it comes to sexuality and reproduction.

The campaigns borrow an essentially feminist argument of "my body, myself" to encourage young people to take control of their bodies, to wait to have sex. In essence, evangelical campaigns say secular culture is telling young people that they have no choice but to have sex, that they are governed by their hormones. In contrast, evangelical campaigns tell young people, "You can control your body. You can choose to wait to have sex."

How do these campaigns deal with those who are no longer virgins?

They talk about "second virginity" or "renewed virginity," how a young person can make a decision from that day forward to remain abstinent until marriage. It's a rhetorical construction of virginity, but it's steeped in a theological understanding of God's forgiveness. Some would criticize that as a form of cheap grace, that you can go out and have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend and then go to the abstinence event and renew your pledge. But the young people I talked to understand that there is no cheap grace. There is no get out of jail free card with these abstinence pledges. The young people who have broken their pledges carry heavy emotional burdens.

What are other ways the U.S. campaigns are successful?

Millions of young people have committed to abstinence since these campaigns began. Have some of the young people broken their pledges? Sure. But this isn't just a numbers game. These programs are successful because they are opening a space for the church to talk about sex. They are teaching both women and men a sense of respect for their physical bodies. We Christians are people of the Incarnation, and yet the physicality of the body scares us. These campaigns empower young people, especially women, to respect their bodies, to realize that they are worth waiting for.

What role do purity rings play in the campaigns?

The purity ring mimics the wedding ring, a physical manifestation of that pledge. One of the young people I interviewed talked about how if someone breaks his commitment, he is encouraged to flush the ring down the toilet in order to maintain the integrity of the symbolic power of the ring. It's a pledge to God, it's a pledge to one's future spouse, but it's also a pledge to a community of other abstinent teens.

What did you learn about the "fairy-tale narrative"?

Some of the campaigns use fairy tales about passive princesses and valiant knights to communicate traditional gender roles. When I looked closer, I found an interesting subversion: The princess, even though she seems to be inactively waiting for her prince, is pictured as actively choosing to adopt princess-like behavior. The dragon that the knights are supposed to slay in order to rescue the princess is really the dragon of their own sexual desires. The campaigns may not be as conservative as they think they are: the young men are impotent, enslaved by their own desires, while the young women are powerfully choosing princess-like behaviors.

What role does modest fashion play?

Modesty is not to be confused with meekness. The campaigns talk about modesty as a form of power. It is similar to the function of the hijab, or head covering, for Muslim women. The hijab forms a kind of community, a physical manifestation that joins women together. It also portrays women's power over men, because it suggests that if they were to reveal their bodies, men would be lusting after them. So if they veil their bodies, they maintain and conserve that power.

What did you find missing from the campaigns?

The campaigns largely avoid talk of sexuality as sacrifice or suffering. But of course it's not sexy to talk about sacrifice and suffering to young people who are raised in a sexualized culture. On the other hand, perhaps this is where the evangelical church is selling out too fast. Language of sacrifice and suffering can be transformative to those who know that sex sells everything from cars to deodorant and, now, abstinence. It's a new kind of asceticism for the generation that has it all.

Instead of trying to master the idioms of the day, we could emphasize the difference the gospel message makes. The gospel is radical enough all on its own, even without the music of Usher or Beyoncé in the background. It's truly an alternative lifestyle. I think that too could be very persuasive among our media-savvy young people. That language of sacrifice and suffering for the purpose of worship to God, and understanding our sexuality as a gift of God, is key.

How might this self-fulfillment language potentially impact a future marriage?

I'm concerned that we may be raising a generation of abstinent teens but setting them up for divorce. I don't think that you need to promise fabulous sex in marriage to make marriage winsome. If we are focusing on great sex in marriage as a reward for abstinence now, then when those young people marry and the sex isn't great—then what? I'm afraid we are making marriage all about sex. So if it's not that, then what is marriage?

You suggest that abstinence is part of a larger endeavor.

By daily acting on that commitment, young people understand through their bodies what it means to become more like Christ. It's essentially a call to holiness that the Scriptures give us. It's just like practicing scales on a piano if you want to become a concert pianist. It's practicing abstinence that allows young people to inhabit their faith commitments in practical and tangible ways.

The largest study and the most quoted critique is that these kinds of pledges only delay sexual debut by about 18 months. I wonder if a more richly theological undergirding to some of the programs could help lengthen those commitments. When the going gets rough, and there is no marriage partner on the horizon, and the abstinence pledge starts to grow cold and stale, what is going to be there for them? I hope that it's something more than a funny skit, a dramatic rock song, or a winsome testimony from a cute guy. I hope there is something deeper from God's Word that's going to stay with them.

The legal case of the snail found in ginger beer

By Clive Coleman. Published by BBC on 20 November 2009.

How a case about a snail gave power to modern consumers and launched a million lawsuits.

This is the story of how our modern law of negligence came about all because of a fizzy drink.

And a mollusc from Paisley in Scotland.

The mollusc in question was a common snail that ended its days in a bottle of ginger beer. It made legal history in the 1932 case of Donoghue v Stevenson.

It begins on an unremarkable Sunday evening on 26th August 1928. May Donoghue, a shop assistant, met a friend at the Wellmeadow cafe in Paisley, near Glasgow.

Her unnamed friend ordered and paid for a pear and ice cream ginger beer 'float' for May.

When the ginger beer was poured into her glass, it was alleged the decomposing remains of a snail dropped out of the darkened, opaque bottle.

May complained of stomach pains, and a doctor diagnosed gastroenteritis and shock.

But if you are thinking McDonalds, hot cups of coffee and big bucks compensation, think again. This is 1928.

No legal redress

In those days, the common law only acknowledged a duty of care was owed to people harmed by the negligent acts of others in specific and limited circumstances.

For example, this was the case where a contract existed between the parties, or where a manufacturer was making something dangerous, or acting fraudulently.

As the law stood, May Donoghue could not take legal action over her snail.

As May's unnamed friend had paid for the drink, it meant May had not entered into a contract with the cafe owner.

Clearly, neither May nor her friend had a contract with the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

The latter had not committed fraud. And ginger beer could hardly be described as dangerous.

To the rescue came one doughty and determined solicitor called Walter Leechman, who took up May's case.

He had already brought two cases against another drinks manufacturer, AG Barr, alleging a dead mouse had been found in a bottle of their ginger beer.

Leechman had lost both cases, but he went ahead and issued May Donoghue's writ against David Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

The case went all the way to the highest court in the land. It was heard in the House of Lords on 10th December 1931, three years after May allegedly discovered the snail.

Women in the 1920s and 30s often met in cafes on their days off

Her counsel argued that a manufacturer who puts a product on the market in a form that does not allow the consumer to examine it before using it, is liable for any damage caused.

Remember May could not have examined her ginger beer before drinking it because the bottle was dark and opaque.

Lord Atkin of Aberdovey, one of the greatest judges of the twentieth century, was on the panel who heard the appeal.

'Love Thy Neighbour'

On 26th May 1932, he found in favour of May Donoghue and rose to give the leading judgment in the case.

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law 'You must not injure your neighbour'; and the lawyer's question: 'Who is my neighbour?' receives a restricted reply.

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

And with those words the modern law of negligence was born.

Lord Atkin based his judgment on the Christian principle of 'loving thy neighbour', and the parable of the Good Samaritan.

This elastic term could now be applied to almost any relationship, in any circumstances.

A Good Samaritan

Among other areas, it covers personal injury, product liability, professional negligence on the part of doctors, architects and even lawyers themselves.

For many, Lord Atkin's judgment was a noble principle based upon the Gospel of Luke. For others, it went too far, giving birth to our modern compensation culture.

It has made many lawyers and insurance companies rich, but it has also seen the ill and injured compensated for losses caused by the negligent acts of others.

In the original case, David Stevenson died less than a year after the Law Lords' decision, and his estate settled May Donoghue's claim to the sum of £200.

But what, I hear you ask, of the snail itself?

Its claim to fame was that it launched a million lawsuits. And it gave power to the modern consumer.

Ginsters' snail

In 2008, 21-year-old Simon Enticknap from Basingstoke bit into a Ginsters chicken and mushroom slice and found….a snail.

Even though he avoided eating it, Ginsters apologized immediately, and sent £25 in compensation.

The speed of their response was down to the Paisley snail.

But to this day, no-one knows for sure if there ever really was a snail in May Donoghue's bottle of ginger beer.