Marginalia: Time Machines and Extended Times

Welcome to the second installment of Marginalia. Once again, the idea behind the feature is to provide an overview of the circulation desk as well as to offer updates on library hours, services and acquisitions. We’ll also be sure to include some useful tricks and tips along the way. As always, our intention is to keep it light, but relevant. So with that in mind, let’s take a quick look at how the law library might function in the far distant future.

In the Year 2525 …

Head Librarian Herbert Evans watched closely as Professor George Zager manipulated the holographic knobs and levers on their brand new ACME Temporal Retrieval Unit.

Once the proper coordinates appeared on the time machine’s search screen, Zager set the sequential oscillation generator to reverse and engaged the device. The machine responded with a short burst of electronic static and proceeded to drop an out-dated Wells Drive into the oversized delivery tray.

After determining the obsolete digital storage drive was still operational, Zager carefully slipped the device into the proper receptacle and patiently waited for it to load.

The screen flickered twice and finally settled on a document named ‘Marginalia: Dispatches from the Diana M. Priestly Circulation Desk’. Herbert Evans smiled, double-tapped the enhancement icon and began to read what appeared to be an informational document concerning recent technological changes and exam hours from late November 2018.

Dear Students,

 Extended exam hours start on December 1st and end on the 20th. During that period the library will be open regular hours from Monday to Thursday (8AM to 10PM). On Friday the 7th and again on the 14th we will close at 8PM rather than 6PM. Saturdays and Sundays see us staying open until 10PM instead of 5:30PM.

 The renovations are finished in the computer lab and the first two rows are now available for lap top users.

 Additionally, the flatbed scanner has been upgraded and relocated to a more accessible location directly across from Study Room 163 on the Main Floor.

 Remember, if you have any questions please feel free to drop by and ask us at the Circulation Desk. You can also call 250-721-8565 or email us at lawlib@uvic.ca.

 By the way, did you know you can book a study room up to seven days in advance of when you need it?

 Best of luck in your exams.

Zager and Evans chuckled at the antiquated technology their predecessors employed and decided it might be fun to go back even further in time. Herbert thought about it for a moment and suggested the 1950’s. George quickly agreed, reconfigured the Temporal Retrieval Unit, and activated the device. After a cacophonous series of clicks and clanks the machine smartly dropped a familiar looking object into the tray.

Zager looked at it, shrugged and passed it over to Herbert. Evans skimmed through the battered paperback book and soon found a title page indicating that it was an anthology of science fiction. He then handed it back to the Professor who opened it to a short story called ‘In the Year 2525’. He suddenly gasped in surprise, looked over at his colleague and read the first line to him: “Head Librarian Herbert Evans watched closely as Professor George Zager began manipulating the holographic knobs and levers on their brand new ACME Temporal Retrieval Unit”.

Photo & Prose: david eugene everard © 2018

Marginalia: Dracula, copyright, and two-hour loans

Marginalia: Dispatches from the Diana M Priestly Circulation Desk
Photo © David Everard 2018

Judging by the bright leaves and the bare trees that once held them Halloween must be here.

Welcome to Marginalia. The intention behind the new blog category is to keep everyone up to date with the services we provide at the circulation desk. Along the way we’ll also introduce you to the staff members who work here and as well as sharing some stories about the library in general. Our intention is to keep it light, but relevant. With that in mind, let’s start things off with a tale about gimmick infringement called Dracula v Nosferatu.

However, before we begin our epic monster bash, here’s a timely treat for you straight from the circulation desk. Did you know that if you borrow a two-hour item from the reserve room during the last two hours before closing it’s not due back until early the following morning?

So, if you’re ready for our main event, let’s open our favorite monster magazine to page thirteen.

Sadly, Uncle Bela isn’t here to narrate it himself because he’s off having his front teeth trimmed and polished at Dr. Acula’s School of Creative Dentistry, but he did ask me to relate this rather duplicitous tale of copycat vampires in his absence.

Albin Grau was a German film producer who had the idea of doing a movie based on Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (1897). Max Reinhardt protégé F.W. Murnau was brought on board to direct and the film was called Nosferatu (1922). There was just one small hitch: Grau didn’t have the rights to either the story or the character.

Other attempts at deception included changing Dracula’s name to Count Orlock, moving the story line back to 1838, and altering Stoker’s ending (death by knives) by having their vampire die from direct exposure to the first light of a new day.

Florence Balcombe (Bram’s wife and literary executor of the estate) was not amused and sued over the intellectual property rights, but what she didn’t know at the time was that Prana Film (Grau’s production company) had gone bankrupt due to an overly expensive promotional campaign. Curiously, that particular strategy came back to haunt Grau a second time when some early publicity posters, which included the phrase “freely adapted from Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, were discovered. In lieu of a cash settlement the court ordered that all European copies of Nosferatu be destroyed. But as any respectable cryptozoologist will attest, vampires are notoriously resilient creatures. Some years later, Florence gave Universal Pictures her blessing and they released an authorised version in 1931. Producer Carl Laemmle Jr. recruited Tod Browning to direct the film and hired Bela Lugosi, a little known, thickly accented, stage actor from Hungary to play Dracula.

Nevertheless, a few copies of Nosferatu managed to survive the European purge. That, combined with the fact that Stoker never registered a copyright for Dracula in America, allowed the film to eventually surface in the United States where it soon became a critically acclaimed addition to the Horror genre.

As we turn the page on this cautionary tale of vampiric plagiarism, I’d like to take a moment and share a quick secret with you (but only if you promise not to tell Uncle Bela). As much as I respect his long standing association with Dracula, I still prefer Max Schreck’s portrayal of the character. Simply put, his plasma chilling performance in Nosferatu sends a sharp shiver of delight through me that runs right from the bottom of my dirt covered Transylvanian coffin all the way to the thick, shiny tips of my blood stained fangs every single time I see the film.

Just in case you’re wondering, my name is Eva Prim and I’m a vampire just like my Uncle Bela!

Happy Halloween!

Photo & Prose: david eugene everard © 2018

 

Massive Enviro Law Research-o-thon effort!

We love to see legal research in action for a real-life purpose!

Today, it’s environmental law reform, through the Enviro Law Research-o-thon! The UVic Environmental Law Club co-ordinated a team of volunteers to research relevant BC legislative history and secondary discussion and to synthesize their results into a shared knowledge base.

Their work will help support the development of mining law reform proposals led by the UVic Environmental Law Centre.

Law librarians Alisa, Caron, and Alex prepared a gorgeous targeted and comprehensive research guide website earlier this week to help the students identify and work with valuable resources in the law library collection, including BC legislative research content in our Quickscribe, HeinOnline, LLMC Digital, and BC Laws databases. It also incorporates the legislative starting points compiled by ELC articling student Renata, and Kim’s chapter on researching BC legislation. Today, the librarians are on hand throughout, to help with the intricate process of historical legislative and contextual legal research.

Kudos to all involved, and many thanks to Quickscribe Inc for their generous financial support of the students’ snacks and incidentals!

Trinity Western University, et al v Law Society of Upper Canada webcast

Oral argument in the Trinity Western University, et al v Law Society of Upper matter is being delivered today and tomorrow at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The case has generated considerable interest in the legal community throughout its path. Read the SCC summary of the case and the factums of the parties and interveners for background or refresher.

If you are interested in watching the oral arguments live today and tomorrow, you can do so via the SCC webcast.

The video recording of oral arguments will be archived; look for a link to it under the case file.

 

Nov 9 Panel Discussion: Ktunaxa Nation

Learn about and discuss last week’s decision Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54. Hear from scholars from UVic Faculty of Law, UVic Indigenous Law Research Unit, and Department of Political Science: Avigail Eisenberg, Darcy Lindberg, Alan Hanna, and Stacie Swain.

Where:   Room 152, Fraser Building
When:    Thursday, Nov 9, 12:30 pm

There will be opportunity for questions and discussion.

Selected further reading:

We’re Hiring Law Students!

Welcome! Your 2017–2018 UVic Law library and Research Help Information

To new UVic Law students, welcome, and to returning students, welcome back! We are excited to work with you to facilitate your learning and research in 2017–2018.

New students will have met Law Librarians Caron Rollins and Alexander Burdett and Senior Staff Supervisor Marisa Lousier during your tour of and orientation to library services and resources on opening day. Look out for our other librarians, Kim Nayyer (Associate University Librarian, Law and head law librarian) and Alisa Lazear (Law Library Intern).

Here are the law library’s fall term regular hours:

Monday – Thursday: 8:00 AM – 10:00 PM
Friday: 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Saturday – Sunday: 10:00 AM – 5:30 PM

Our hours change at exams and between terms. Full details are available here.

And the Research Help Desk is now open!

Monday – Thursday 11:30 am – 1:30 pm 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Friday By appointment  lawref@uvic.ca
Saturday closed
Sunday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm

When the desk isn’t open, you can still get law research help by contacting lawref@uvic.ca, or by calling 250-472-5023. One-to-one appointments with a law librarian can be scheduled via those contacts.

#Research4Refugees: Resources from your UVic librarians

Kudos for your great work in #research4refugees, UVic Law students!

In the interests of expediency, we’re posting here the research resources you need to get started. Later, we can formalize into an more structured research guide. You will also find us at the law school or in the library on Saturday to offer a guiding hand.

And watch this space—It is growing by the minute!

New! (added 4:20 pm, Friday Feb 3)

We’ve added a brief list of relevant secondary sources available in the law library, a growing list at the bottom of this post.

Other sources (added 2:25 pm, Friday Feb 3)


And of course if you haven’t taken LAW 323 or LAW 342, don’t forget to orient yourself with some key secondary sources:

US resources

  • A brief overview of US legal research for Canadian legal researchers, with links to key sources:

US legal research 24 Feb 2016 CC ppt

Other commentary:

Bordering on Failure : Canada-U.S. Border Policy and the Politics of Refugee Exclusion , Harvard Immigration and Refugee Law Clinical Program, 2013.

Audrey Macklin, Disappearing Refugees: Reflections on the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, (2004-2005) 36 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 365   The article provides background on the agreement such as below:

HANDS ACROSS THE BORDER:Working Together at our Shared Border and Abroad to Ensure Safety, Security and Efficiency. Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, December 2002

Government Response to the Report of the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration Safe Third Country Regulations, May 2003

(As we’re pulling this together pretty quickly, we might have typos or link errors in some of the content above. If you spot any, please inform us and we’ll fix asap.)

EU Asylum Policies [electronic resource] : the Power of Strong Regulating States / Natascha Zaun Cham, Switzerland : Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) ebook

Added July 2017

Comment by Professor Donna Greschner on Brexit judgment

As we wrote earlier, on November 3, 2016, judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2016] EWHC 2768 was released. We’re pleased to host this guest post by UVic Law Professor Donna Greschner, commenting on the judgment and its importance for Canadian constitutional law:

Canadian constitutional lawyers will find much of interest in the High Court’s decision that the UK government does not have prerogative power to ‘pull the trigger’ on UK membership in the European Union. In the Court’s opinion, since the notice to withdraw from the EU would be irrevocable and thus would irreversibly affect legal rights created by statutes, the power to give notice is held by the body that created the statutory rights: Parliament. Unless Parliament relinquishes its power to the executive, which the Court held Parliament has not done, the power continues to be Parliament’s alone.

In short, the constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is paramount and must be respected by the executive: “This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It was…..decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognized ever since.” (at para. 26).

With Canada having inherited “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom,”  to quote the Preamble to our Constitution Act, 1867, the High Court’s understanding of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty deserves our close reading, for it is our principle, too. During Stephen Harper’s time as Prime Minister from 2006-2015, executive disrespect of Parliament was common practise. Indeed, disrespect hardened to contempt at least once.

Although the High Court’s decision is already under appeal, its clear affirmation of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty should stand as an important bulwark for representative democracy in times of troubling accretions of executive power.