Passenger Stabbed Attacker on Tube with a Swordstick

A Commuter carrying a swordstick stabbed a man in the stomach after he tried to strangle him on a London Underground train, a court was told yesterday.

Mr. Edward Cook drew his swordstick as he was held by the neck and his head was repeatedly struck against a door, it was said in Wood Green Crown Court.

The court heard that Mr. Cook, aged 56, was returning home on the Victoria Line when two young men attacked him.

"One of them pushed him against the door of the carriage, holding him by the neck and banging him against the door. At that stage he took out his sword and used it on the person attacking him," Mr. Michael Lawson, for the prosecution, told the jury.

The attacker, who smelled strongly of alcohol, was taken to hospital and treated for the wound. Mr. Сook was arrested and charged with possessing an offensive weapon. He told police he carried the swordstick for self-defence while walking in Epping Forest. Mr. Lawson said there was no lasting injury to the attacker.

After the incident Mr. Cook was interviewed by police and explained why he used the swordstick.

He said: "l did it as a last means of self-defence. It was a desperate act as my life was in danger."

The walking stick, which was unscrewed to reveal a three-foot long blade and cost Mr. Cook 400, was shown to the jury.

The case continues today.

1. What was Mr Cook charged with?

2. What arguments do you think were used in court by the prosecution (by the defence)?

3. Which of these things do you think happened at the end of the trial?
-Mr. Cook was found not guilty.
-He was found guilty and was sent to prison.
-He was found guilty and had to pay a fine.

Read for Enjoyment

Prisoner: "Judge, I don t know what to do."

Judge: "Why, how’s that?"

Prisoner: "I swore to tell the truth, but every time I try some lawyer objects."

UNIT 12

Reading Practice

Before reading think about the following points.

What do you understand by human rights?

How are human rights protected in your country?

Human Rights

1. In 1960, Peter Benenson, a British lawyer, read about two students who had been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for drinking a toast to freedom during the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal. He joined with others to start a campaign for prisoners of conscience-people who had never used or advocated violence and were simply in prison because of their political or religious beliefs. This was the beginning of Amnesty International, the largest of many organizations in the world which put pressure on governments to observe human rights. By gathering information, creating publicity and writing letters, Amnesty has helped to speed up the release of such prisoners all over the world. It also campaigns for fair trials for political prisoners, an end to torture and inhuman treatment, and the abolition of the death penalty. Amnesty and other groups, such as the Anti-Slavery Society and Index on Censorship, have helped make more and more people aware of the concept of human rights-rights that go beyond the laws of one country.

2. Yet, not everyone agrees that merely being born as a human being entitles someone to certain freedoms and treatment, and those who do agree have different opinions as to what these rights are. Many of the rights of citizens are also considered human rights. What needs to be considered here more than the nature of such rights is to whom they apply. A constitutional right is one which a state guarantees to its own citizens and, sometimes, to foreigners who are within its jurisdiction. But a human right is one to which people all over the world are entitled, whatever their nationality and wherever they live.

3. Most of the law in the world is made by individual governments for their own people. But human rights transcend political divisions. They are basic minimum standards of freedom and security for all. When governments fail to meet these standards, they are criticized by their own citizens, individuals in other countries, and even by foreign governments. Alleging human rights violations, some countries have imposed economic sanctions against others. Many countries have restricted trade to South Africa because of its policy of apartheid. Human rights have been cited as a reason for military intervention against foreign countries - for example, by the Indians in former East Pakistan, the Vietnamese in Cambodia - although there were undoubtedly other reasons for such intervention.

4. Is criticism of, and even intervention against, another country justified? There is both a moral and a legal side to this question. Opponents of interference argue that moral standards are the products of different cultures and it is wrong for one culture to impose its values on another. In reply to criticism of its policies in China and Tibet, the Chinese government has repeatedly argued that international human rights organizations make judgements based on the values of Western capitalist nations and that China has its own values which put more emphasis upon economic security and community solidarity. The governments of some Islamic states have defended the veiling of women and cutting off the hands of thieves as practices founded in their religion and which ensure a safe society. On the legal side, some have argued that the independence of nation states is the basis of the United Nations, the fundamental body of international law and order, and that when one country interferes in the affairs of another it is because its economic and military power, not its human rights policies, is superior.

Comprehension Check