A European Culture War in the Twentieth Century? Antic-Catholicism and Anti-Bolshevism between Moscow, Berlin, and the Vatican 1922 to 1933

The term “culture war” has become a generic expression for secular-catholic conflicts across nineteenth-century Europe. Yet, if measured by acts of violence, anticlericalism peaked in the years between 1927 and 1939, when thousands of Catholic priests and believers were imprisoned or executed and hundreds of churches razed in Mexico, Spain and Russia. This essay argues that not only in these three countries, but indeed across Europe a culture war raged in the interwar period. It takes, as a case study, the interaction of communist and Catholic actors located in the Vatican, the Soviet Union, and Germany in the period between the beginning of the Pontificate of Pius XI in 1922 and Hitler’s appointment as chancellor of Germany in 1933. Using correspondence and reports from the Vatican archives, this essay shows how Papal officials and communist leaders each sought to mobilize the German populace to achieve their own diplomatic ends. German Catholics and communists gladly responded to the call to arms that sounded from Rome and Moscow in 1930, but they did so also to further their own domestic goals. The case study shows how national contexts inflected the transnational dynamics of radical anti-Catholicism in interwar Europe. In the end, agitation against “godlessness” did not lead to the return of a “Christian State” desired by many conservative Christians. Instead, the culture war further destabilized the republic and added a religious dimension to a landscape well suited to National Socialist efforts to reach a Christian population otherwise mistrustful of its völkisch and anticlerical elements.

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.

Revisiting intersectionality for EU Anti-Discrimination Law in an economic crisis –a critical legal studies perspective

This article discusses the role of EU anti-discrimination law in challenging EU anti-crisis measures from a critical legal studies perspective. Critical legal scholarship is defined through its challenge of ‘lex’ through the vision of ‘ius’ and its critical links with social movements. EU anti-discrimination law attracts critique for constituting a compartmentalised socio-legal field, which prevents justice for those at intersections of inequalities. By defining as the aim of anti-discrimination law the combat of disadvantage resulting from ascribed otherness around the nodes sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and disability, the article suggests a convincing normative vision suitable to de-compartmentalise the field and adequately address intersectionality. This critical legal perspective on intersectionality differs from its sociological counterparts by omitting class as a category. The article demonstrates that this distinction is necessary for EU anti-discrimination law to maintain its critical edge.

Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions

Objectives: The requirement in Northern Ireland to prescribe biologic agents according to NICE/BSR guidelines and within a fixed budget has created a waiting list for treatment that has no parallel in the Republic of Ireland. The study investigated the bearing this situation may have on had on the consultants’ judgements in the respective areas.

Methods: 78 case vignettes created from the data on real patients with RA treated with biologics in the north and south of Ireland were appraised by 9 southern and 8 northern consultants who judged the clinical benefit and significance of the patients’ condition after a trial of therapy. Quantitative (Clinical Judgement Analysis) and Qualitative (Focus groups) techniques were used.

Results: Northern consultants perceived a slightly greater degree of clinical benefit after a trial of therapy than southern consultants. Judgment models of northern and southern consultants were broadly comparable. The latter tended to be more uniform in their judgments than the southern group. Focus group discussions with consultants largely validated the findings of the quantitative analysis but revealed how clinical judgment analysis might be misled by gaming strategies.

Conclusions: Despite the absence of overt rationing in the south of Ireland, as far as the judgment of therapeutic benefit from biologics was concerned, the clinical judgment policies of practitioners were very similar to those in the north. The adoption of NICE/BSR guidelines in the north may have improved the uniformity of clinical practice in Northern Ireland.