Distal volcanic ash layers in the Lateglacial Interstadial (GI-1): problems of stratigraphic discrimination

A new Icelandic ash layer has been detected in mid-Interstadial sediments in a number of Scottish Lateglacial sequences and has been named the Penifiler Tephra. It is rhyolitic in composition and possesses a chemistry, which is similar to the Borrobol Tephra of early Lateglacial Interstadial age, which also occurs in a number of these same sequences. Where the Borrobol Tephra has been identified in these sequences it consistently exhibits a diffuse distribution accompanied in some cases by stratigraphic bimodality. A number of sedimentological and taphonomic factors are considered in order to account for this distribution. One possibility is that these distributions are produced by taphonomic factors. Another possibility is that the Borrobol Tephra may not be the product of a single Icelandic eruption, but of two events closely spaced in time. In at least two of the sequences investigated in this study, basaltic shards were found in association with the Penifiler and Borrobol tephras, suggesting either a basaltic phase associated with these eruptions, or coincident eruptions from a separate basaltic volcanic centre. The discovery of the new Penifiler Tephra makes a contribution to the regional tephrostratigraphic framework, and provides an additional isochron for assessing the synchroneity of palaeoenvironmental changes during the Interstadial. The true stratigraphic nature and age of the Borrobol Tephra, however, remains unresolved and, therefore, its use as an isochron is more problematic. The possible occurrence of basaltic populations may strengthen correlations with basaltic tephras recently detected in the NGRIP ice-core.

'Sorry I meant the patient's left side': impact of distraction on right/left discrimination

Context Medical students can have difficulty in distinguishing left from right. Many infamous medical errors have occurred when a procedure has been performed on the wrong side, such as in the removal of the wrong kidney. Clinicians encounter many distractions during their work. There is limited information on how these affect performance. 
Objectives Using a neuropsychological paradigm, we aim to elucidate the impacts of different types of distraction on left–right (LR) discrimination ability. 
Methods Medical students were recruited to a study with four arms: (i) control arm (no distraction); (ii) auditory distraction arm (continuous ambient ward noise); (iii) cognitive distraction arm (interruptions with clinical cognitive tasks), and (iv) auditory and cognitive distraction arm. Participants’ LR discrimination ability was measured using the validated Bergen Left–Right Discrimination Test (BLRDT). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyse the impacts of the different forms of distraction on participants’ performance on the BLRDT. Additional analyses looked at effects of demographics on performance and correlated participants’ self-perceived LR discrimination ability and their actual performance. 
Results A total of 234 students were recruited. Cognitive distraction had a greater negative impact on BLRDT performance than auditory distraction. Combined auditory and cognitive distraction had a negative impact on performance, but only in the most difficult LR task was this negative impact found to be significantly greater than that of cognitive distraction alone. There was a significant medium-sized correlation between perceived LR discrimination ability and actual overall BLRDT performance. 
Conclusions
Distraction has a significant impact on performance and multifaceted approaches are required to reduce LR errors. Educationally, greater emphasis on the linking of theory and clinical application is required to support patient safety and human factor training in medical school curricula. Distraction has the potential to impair an individual's ability to make accurate LR decisions and students should be trained from undergraduate level to be mindful of this.

EU Non-Discrimination Law and Intersectionality:investigating the triangle of racial, gender and disability discrimination

This book contributes to a critical reflection of current legislative and jurisprudential developments in Non-Discrimination Law, focusing on the European Union. The book is focused on intersectionality between gender, race and disability and the question of whether, and to what extent, this intersection can be adequately addressed in (EU) law. The discussion rests on two basic assumptions. First, the multiplication of 'discrimination grounds' in EU law and other legal regimes should not result in a dilution of the demands of equality law. Accordingly, the book focuses on the three key grounds - race, gender and disability. These constitute nodes around which other discrimination grounds can be grouped. Second, any multi-ground non-discrimination law framework needs to engage with the question of discrimination on several grounds. This book provides a critical evaluation of some of the problems presented by such intersectionality and an opportunity to explore the issues in depth. This collection offers some new proposals relating to the regrouping of identity categories and to the general approach to socio-legal research in the field. It also contains a comparative section, which expands on practical experiences with intersectionality and law, and a section dedicated to juridical responses to intersectionality.

The book will be a valuable resource for researchers, academics and those working in the area of EU non-discrimination law and policy.

Enforcing Employment Discrimination Law - Potential Transplants from Italy to Britain and Vice Versa?

While substantive EU non-discrimination law has been harmonized in great detail, the enforcement regime for EU non-discrimination law consists merely of a few isolated elements. Thus, the pursuit of unity through harmonization in substantive EU law is accompanied by considerable regulatory autonomy for Member States in securing the efficiency of those laws, reflecting the diversity of national enforcement regimes, and resulting in twenty-seven different national models for enforcing discrimination law in labour markets. This article pursues two connected arguments through a comparison of rules for enforcing non-discrimination law in labour markets in Britain and Italy. First, it argues that enforcing non-discrimination law in labour markets is best achieved when responsive governance, repressive regulation and mainstreaming equality law are combined. Second, the article submits that diversity of national legal orders within the EU is not necessarily detrimental, as it offers opportunities for mutual learning across legal systems.The notion of mutual learning across systems is proposed in order to analyse the transnational migration of legal ideas within the EU. Such migration has been criticized in debates about the ‘transplantation’ of legal concepts or legal irritation through foreign legal ideas, in particular by comparative labour lawyers. However, EU harmonization policies in the field of non-discrimination law aim to impact on national labour laws. The article develops the notion of mutual learning across legal systems in order to establish conditions for transnational migration of legal ideas, and demonstrates the viability of these concepts by applying them to the field of non-discrimination law

Short comment: To Nail a Jellyfish? Finding a progressive agenda for EU anti-discrimination law

The title of this short (about 4500 words) intervention translates to "To Nail a Jellyfish? Finding a progressive agenda for EU anti-discrimination law". I engage with those criticising EU anti-discrimination law as yet another emanation of the EU's "neo-liberal" nature which fails to establish a viable social policy regime. I criticise this in two directions. First, I take issue with the theory that anti-discrimination law and policy has to be part of social policy. Actually, the field has a mission which differs from social policy, in that it addresses disadvantage resulting from othering, combating stereotypes as well as promoting accomodation of difference. Second, I show how the critique of judicialisation of policy is not unique to anti-discrimination law and policy. The so called turn to rights based employment law has been criticised under this mantra by those who fear that collective labour law mechanisms will become less prevalent. Further, those who have engaged with anti-discrimination law for a much longer time than those criticising it have also devised means to overcome the individualistic tendencies of rights adjudication. They have (partly successfully) argued in favour of establishing equality bodies and creating positive obligations. Thus, the critique neglects the field it takes on, and does not accept the fact that anti-discrimination law and policy must be considered a field in its own right instead of the servant of social law and policy.
Now, this is more a summary than an abstract - since I realise that not everyone reads German.

Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law

This casebook, the result of the collaborative efforts of a panel of experts from various EU Member States, is the latest in the Ius Commune Casebook series developed at the Universities of Maastricht and Leuven. The book provides a comprehensive and skilfully designed resource for students, practitioners, researchers, public officials, NGOs, consumer organisations and the judiciary. In common with earlier books in the series, this casebook presents cases and other materials (legislative materials, international and European materials, excerpts from books or articles). As non-discrimination law is a comparatively new subject, the chapters search for and develop the concepts of discrimination law on the basis of a wide variety of young and often still emerging case law and legislation. The result is a comprehensive textbook with materials from a wide variety of EU Member States. The book is entirely in English (i.e. materials are translated where not available in English). At the end of each chapter a comparative overview ties the material together, with emphasis, where appropriate, on existing or emerging general principles in the legal systems within Europe.
The book illustrates the distinct relationship between international, European and national legislation in the field of non-discrimination law. It covers the grounds of discrimination addressed in the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives, as well as non-discrimination law relating to gender. In so doing, it covers the law of a large number of EU Member States, alongside some international comparisons.
The Ius Commune Casebook on Non-Discrimination Law
- provides practitioners with ready access to primary and secondary legal material needed to assist them in crafting test case strategies.
- provides the judiciary with the tools needed to respond sensitively to such cases.
- provides material for teaching non-discrimination law to law and other students.
- provides a basis for ongoing research on non-discrimination law.
- provides an up-to-date overview of the implementation of the Directives and of the state of the law.
This Casebook is the result of a project which has been supported by a grant from the European Commission's Anti-Discrimination Programme.

Proportionality in Age Discrimination Cases - a Model Suitable for Socially Embedded Rights

This chapter discusses the use of proportionality in age discrimination cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. It argues that the Court does not use this concept systematically - indeed it exposes some contradiction that make the case law seem arbitrary - and proposes a more fruitful use of the principle, which is in line with a modern conception of human rights. The chapter argues that the principle of proportionality stems from the time when human rights served the recently liberated burgeois elite in guarding their rights to property and liberty against the state. Today, states not only respect human rights (which is fully sufficient for this elite, who can rely on their inherited wealth to fend for themselves). They also protect and promote human rights, and these activities are a precondition for human rights to be practically relevant for the whole population. This also means that state activity, which is experienced as a limitation of rights to property and liberty by some, may constitute a measure to promote and protect human rights of others. In employment law - the only field where the EU ban on age discrimination is applied - this is a typical situation. If such a situation occurs, the principle of proportionality must be applied in a bifurcated way.It is not sufficient that the limitation of property rights is proportionate for the achievement of a public policy aim. If the aim of public policy is to enable the effective use of human rights, the limitation of the state action must be proportionate to the protection and promotion of those human rights. It is argued that the principle of proportionality is superior to less structures balancing acts (e.g. the Wednesbury principle), if it is applied both ways. Going over to the field of age discrimination, the chapter identifies a number of potentially colliding aims pursued in this field. Banning age discrimination may relate to genuine aims of anti-discrimination law if bias against older or very young workers is addressed. However, the EU ban of discrimination against all ages also serves to restructure employment law and policy to the age of flexibilisation, replacing the synchronisation principle that has been predominant for the welfare states of the 20th century. The former aim is related to human rights protection, while the latter aim is not (at least not always). This has consequences for applying the proportionality test. The chapter proposes different ways to argue the most difficult age discrimination cases, where anti-discrimination rationales and flexibilisation rationales clash

Differenzierte Gerechtigkeit: Diskriminierungsschutz und Vertragsrecht

The theme of this book is the perceived tensions between contract law's principle of private autonomy and non-discrimination law. I first analyse the notion of discrimination, and specify that I restrict the investigation to ascribed difference,more specifically to perceived race/ethnicty, sex/gender and disability. Based on an analysis of the aims of non-discrimination law which extends onto markets, I then presented potential structures of non-discrimination clauses addressing market inequalities. Turning to a doctrinal investigation of German contract law and its position towards discrimination on grounds, I first investigated whether international law, EU law or the German constitution form a stable base for contractual non-discrimination law. Having concluded that these bodies of law require some protection against discrimination based on ascribed difference, but that contract law needs to provide its own specification, I then offer a very short comparative chapter on British and Dutch non-discrimination law (I guess I have developed quite a bit in this field since then!). Finally, I analyse in how far German courts have offered protection against discrimination on markets in the past, and which position the doctrine has taken. From page 290, I finally offer a conceptual, paradigmatic and principled proposal of how to integrate a principle of non-discrimination into German contract law. To my own surprise, this was later endorsed by one of the "doyens" of German contract law, Professor Canaris. In any case, you can see from my edited collection of 2011, that I am still fascinated by discrimination on grounds of race/ethnicity, sex/gender and disability.

The EU Equal Treatment Directives - implementation in German labour law

This article in one of the leading German journals on labour law analyses the shortcomings of German labour law at the time (2004) in relation to the EU non-discrimination directives. It states that the reluctance to legislate against race, sex and disability discrimination must be overcome, if the demands of the directives are to be fulfilled. It also explains how those forms of discrimination could already be addressed by interpreting German labour law in line with those directives and constitutional requirements. Only in 2006 was the relevant legislation finally passed (three years later than required).

Was Personalverantwortliche über das Verbot der mittelbaren Geschlechtsdiskriminierung wissen sollten

This chapter introduces the uses of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex for human resources management.

Restorative Justice and Sex Offending

This essay examines the origins and uses of restorative justice with sexual offending and the contemporary challenges and controversies surrounding this. It charts the range of ad hoc initiatives which have sought to apply a restorative form of intervention with violent or sexual offending from first time and ‘acquaintance’ rape as well as young sexual abusers to high risk sexual offenders in the form of circles of support and accountability. Such schemes are often presented as a counter to the failings of retributive forms of justice and are premised on Braithwaite’s (1989) notion of ‘reintegrative shaming’ that seek to reintegrate offenders into the community. Critics of restorative justice traditionally put forward a number of core objectives when restorative justice is applied to serious forms of offending such as sexual offending. The essay also sets out and seeks to counter these principal challenges and how they may be overcome. For the most part, however, restorative justice has failed to reach its potential as a fully fledged sentencing rationale in being applied as a mainstream response to a wide range of offending including that at the higher end of the spectrum. The essay also seeks to examine barriers to restorative justice within contemporary penal policy and to highlight some of the most controversial applications of the restorative paradigm including those related to clergy sexual abuse. It concludes by offering some thoughts on the future of restorative justice as a mainstream responses to serious forms of offending.

European Union Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives on Multidimensional Equality Law

EU equality law is multidimensional in being based on different rationales and concepts. Consequently, the concept of discrimination has become fragmented, with different instruments envisaging different scopes of protection. This raises questions as to the ability of EU law to address the situation of persons excluded on a number of grounds. This edited collection addresses the increasing complexity of European Equality Law from jurisprudential, sociological and political science perspectives. Internationally renowned researchers from Scandinavian, Continental and Central European countries and Britain analyse consequences of multiplying discrimination grounds within EU equality law, considering its multidimensionality and intersectionality. The contributors to the volume theorise the move from formal to substantive equality law and its interrelation to new forms of governance, demonstrating the specific combination of non-discrimination law with welfare state models which reveal the global implications of the European Union. The book will be of interest to academics and policy makers all over the world, in particular to those researching and studying law, political sciences and sociology with an interest in human rights, non discrimination law, contract and employment law or European studies.