Skip to content

Case Study On Consumer Rights Wikipedia France

"Civil rights" redirects here. For other uses, see Civil rights (disambiguation).

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights.

History[edit]

The phrase "Rights for Civil" is a translation of Latin ius civis (rights of a citizen). Roman citizens could be either free (libertas) or servile (servitus), but they all had rights in law.[5] After the Edict of Milan in 313, these rights included the freedom of religion; however in 380, the Edict of Thessalonica required all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess Catholic Christianity.[6] Roman legal doctrine was lost during the Middle Ages, but claims of universal rights could still be made based on Christian doctrine. According to the leaders of Kett's Rebellion (1549), "all bond men may be made free, for God made all free with his precious blood-shedding."[7]

In the 17th century, English common law judge Sir Edward Coke revived the idea of rights based on citizenship by arguing that Englishmen had historically enjoyed such rights. The Parliament of England adopted the English Bill of Rights in 1689. It was one of the influences drawn on by George Mason and James Madison when drafting the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. The Virginia declaration is the direct ancestor and model for the U.S. Bill of Rights (1789).

The removal by legislation of a civil right constitutes a "civil disability". In early 19th century Britain, the phrase "civil rights" most commonly referred to the issue of such legal discrimination against Catholics. In the House of Commons support for civil rights was divided, with many politicians agreeing with the existing civil disabilities of Catholics. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 restored their civil rights.

In the 1860s, Americans adapted this usage to newly freed blacks. Congress enacted civil rights acts in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1991.

Protection of rights[edit]

T. H. Marshall notes that civil rights were among the first to be recognized and codified, followed later by political rights and still later by social rights. In many countries, they are constitutional rights and are included in a bill of rights or similar document. They are also defined in international human rights instruments, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1967 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Civil and political rights need not be codified to be protected, although most democracies worldwide do have formal written guarantees of civil and political rights. Civil rights are considered to be natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his A Summary View of the Rights of British America that "a free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

The question of to whom civil and political rights apply is a subject of controversy. In many countries, citizens have greater protections against infringement of rights than non-citizens; at the same time, civil and political rights are generally considered to be universal rights that apply to all persons.

According to political scientist Salvador Santino F. Regilme Jr., analyzing the causes of and lack of protection from human rights abuses in the Global South should be focusing on the interactions of domestic and international factors—an important perspective that has usually been systematically neglected in the social science literature.[8]

Other rights[edit]

Custom also plays a role. Implied or unenumerated rights are rights that courts may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom; one example is the right to privacy in the United States, and the Ninth Amendment explicitly shows that there are other rights that are also protected.

The United States Declaration of Independence states that people have unalienable rights including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". It is considered by some that the sole purpose of government is the protection of life, liberty and property.[9]

Ideas of self-ownership and cognitive liberty affirm rights to choose the food one eats,[10][11][12] the medicine one takes,[13][14][15] the habit one indulges.[16][17][18]

Social movements for civil rights[edit]

Main article: Movements for civil rights

Civil rights guarantee equal protection under the law. When civil and political rights are not guaranteed to all as part of equal protection of laws, or when such guarantees exist on paper but are not respected in practice, opposition, legal action and even social unrest may ensue.

Some historians suggest that New Orleans was the cradle of the civil rights movement in the United States, due to the earliest efforts of Creoles to integrate the military en masse.[19] W.C.C. Claiborne, appointed by Thomas Jefferson to be governor of the Territory of Orleans, formally accepted delivery of the French colony on December 20, 1803. Free men of color had been members of the militia for decades under both Spanish and French control of the colony of Louisiana. They volunteered their services and pledged their loyalty to Claiborne and to their newly adopted country.[20]

Despite this, in early 1804, the new U.S. administration in New Orleans, under Governor Claiborne, was faced with a dilemma previously unknown in the United States, i.e., the integration of the military by incorporating entire units of previously established "colored" militia.[21] See, e.g., the February 20, 1804 letter to Claiborne from Secretary of War Henry Dearborn that "it would be prudent not to increase the Corps, but to diminish, if it could be done without giving offense".[22]

Civil rights movements in the United States gathered steam by 1848 with such documents as the Declaration of Sentiment.[23][full citation needed] Consciously modeled after the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments became the founding document of the American women's movement, and it was adopted at the Seneca Falls Convention, July 19 and 20, 1848.[24][full citation needed]

Worldwide, several political movements for equality before the law occurred between approximately 1950 and 1980. These movements had a legal and constitutional aspect, and resulted in much law-making at both national and international levels. They also had an activist side, particularly in situations where violations of rights were widespread. Movements with the proclaimed aim of securing observance of civil and political rights included:

Most civil rights movements relied on the technique of civil resistance, using nonviolent methods to achieve their aims.[25] In some countries, struggles for civil rights were accompanied, or followed, by civil unrest and even armed rebellion. While civil rights movements over the last sixty years have resulted in an extension of civil and political rights, the process was long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these movements did not achieve or fully achieve their objectives. Currently there is a non-violent Civil Rights Movement going on. It is called taking a knee and was started by NFL athlete Colin Kaepernick. People of every race and nationality are participating it in it[26].

Problems and analysis[edit]

Questions about civil and political rights have frequently emerged. For example, to what extent should the government intervene to protect individuals from infringement on their rights by other individuals, or from corporations—e.g., in what way should employment discrimination in the private sector be dealt with?

Political theory deals with civil and political rights. Robert Nozick and John Rawls expressed competing visions in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Other influential authors in the area include Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, and Jean Edward Smith.

First-generation rights[edit]

First-generation rights, often called "purple" rights, deal essentially with liberty and participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature, as well as strongly individualistic: They serve negatively to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, (in some countries) the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and voting rights. They were pioneered in the United States by the Bill of Rights and in France by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in the 18th century, although some of these rights and the right to due process date back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Rights of Englishmen, which were expressed in the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

They were enshrined at the global level and given status in international law first by Articles 3 to 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In Europe, they were enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953.

The civil rights movement was a struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for blacks to gain equal rights under the law in the United States. In 1868, the 14th amendment to the constitution gave blacks equal protection under the law. In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment.

See also[edit]

Martin Luther King Jr.

References[edit]

  1. ^The Civil Rights act of 1964, ourdocuments.gov
  2. ^Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, accessboard.gov
  3. ^Summary of LGBT civil rights protections, by state, at Lambda Legal, lambdalegal.org
  4. ^A useful survey is Paul Sieghart, The Lawful Rights of Mankind: An Introduction to the International Legal Code of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 1985.
  5. ^Mears, T. Lambert, Analysis of M. Ortolan's Institutes of Justinian, Including the History and, p. 75.
  6. ^Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 4, p. 703.
  7. ^"Human Rights: 1500-1760 - Background". Nationalarchives.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-11. 
  8. ^Regilme, Salvador Santino F., Jr. (3 October 2014). "The Social Science of Human Rights: The Need for a 'Second Image Reversed'?". Third World Quarterly. 35 (8): 1390–1405. doi:10.1080/01436597.2014.946255. 
  9. ^House Bill 4Archived 2012-10-01 at the Wayback Machine.
  10. ^Mark Nugent (July 23, 2013). "The Fight for Food Rights (Review of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights: The Escalating Battle Over Who Decides What We Eat by David Gumpert)". The American Conservative. Retrieved September 15, 2013. 
  11. ^Robert Book (March 23, 2012). "The Real Broccoli Mandate". Forbes. Retrieved September 15, 2013. 
  12. ^Meredith Bragg & Nick Gillspie (June 21, 2013). "Cheese Lovers Fight Idiotic FDA Ban on Mimolette Cheese!". Reason. Retrieved September 15, 2013. 
  13. ^Jessica Flanigan (July 26, 2012). "Three arguments against prescription requirements". Journal of Medical Ethics. 38: 579–586. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100240. PMID 22844026. Retrieved September 14, 2013. 
  14. ^Kerry Howley (August 1, 2005). "Self-Medicating in Burma: Pharmaceutical freedom in an outpost of tyranny". Reason. Retrieved September 14, 2013. 
  15. ^Daniel Schorn (February 11, 2009). "Prisoner Of Pain". 60 Minutes. Retrieved September 15, 2013. 
  16. ^Emily Dufton (Mar 28, 2012). "The War on Drugs: Should It Be Your Right to Use Narcotics?". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 13, 2013. 
  17. ^Doug Bandow (2012). "From Fighting the Drug War to Protecting the Right to Use Drugs - Recognizing a Forgotten Liberty". Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom(PDF). Chapter 10. Fraser Institute. pp. 253–280. 
  18. ^Thomas Szasz (1992). Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. Praeger. 
  19. ^Eaton, Fernin. "Louisiana's Free People of Color-Digitization Grant-letter in support". Retrieved June 7, 2013. 
  20. ^Carter, Clarence (1940). The Territorial Papers of the United States, Vol. IX, The Territory of Orleans. p. 174. 
  21. ^Eaton, Fernin. "1811 Slave Uprising, etc". Salon Publique, Pitot House, November 7, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2013. 
  22. ^Rowland, Dunbar (1917). Official Letter Books of W.C.C. Claiborne, 1801-1816. 2. Mississippi Dept. of Archives & History. pp. 54–55. 
  23. ^"Signatures to the Seneca Falls Convention 'Declaration of Sentiments'". American History Online, Facts On File, Inc.
  24. ^Cullen-DuPont, Kathryn. "Declaration of Rights and Sentiments". Encyclopedia of Women's History in America, Second Edition. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2000. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc.
  25. ^Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash (eds.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford University Press, 2009. Includes chapters by specialists on the various movements.
  26. ^"By taking a knee, Kaepernick sparked a movement for justice | rabble.ca". rabble.ca. Retrieved 2017-10-06. 

External links[edit]

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

Overview[edit]

Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil rights. Controversial examples include property rights, reproductive rights, and civil marriage. Whether the existence of victimless crimes infringes upon civil liberties is a matter of dispute. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.

The formal concept of civil liberties is often dated back to Magna Carta, an English legal charter agreed in 1215 which in turn was based on pre-existing documents, namely the Charter of Liberties.[1]

Asia[edit]

China[edit]

Main article: Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China

The Constitution of People's Republic of China (which applies only to mainland China, not to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), especially its Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, claims to protect many civil liberties. Taiwan, which is separated from China, has its own Constitution.

India[edit]

Main article: Fundamental Rights in India

The Fundamental Rights—embodied in Part III of the constitution—guarantee liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and right to constitutional remedies.[2]

These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practices. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of un-touchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfree labour. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation".[3] High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports.

The Fundamental Rights emphasize equality by guaranteeing to all citizens the access and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply for persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression are applicable only to the citizens of India (including non-resident Indian citizens).[4] The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to overseas citizens of India.[5]

Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too.[6] For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on State action and actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest. In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.[7] However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history. In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation.According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.[8] The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The President can, by order, suspend the constitutional written remedies as well.

Japan[edit]

Main article: Human rights in Japan

Since 1947, Japan, a country with a constitutional monarchy and known for its socially “conservative society where change is gradual,” has a constitution with a seemingly strong bill of rights at its core (Chapter III. Rights and Duties of the People).[9] In many ways, it resembles the U.S. Constitution prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that is because it came into life during the Alliedoccupation of Japan. This constitution may have felt like a foreign imposition to the governing elites, but not to the ordinary people "who lacked faith in their discredited leaders and supported meaningful change."[10] In the abstract, the constitution strives to secure fundamental individual liberties and rights, which are covered pointedly in articles 10 to 40. Most salient of the human dignity articles is article 25, section 1, which guarantees that all “people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.”[11]

Despite, the adoption of this liberal constitution, often referred as the "Postwar Constitution" (戦後憲法, Sengo-Kenpō) or the "Peace Constitution" (平和憲法, Heiwa-Kenpō), the Japanese governing elites have struggled to usher in an inclusive, open and Pluralist society.[12] Even after the end of World War II and the departure of the Allied government of occupation in 1952, Japan has been the target of international criticism for failing to admit to war crimes, institutional religious discrimination and maintaining a weak freedom of the press, the treatment of children, minorities, foreigners, and women, its punitive criminal justice system, and more recently, the systematic bias against LGBT people.[13][14][15]

The first Japanese attempt to a bill of rights was in the 19th century Meiji constitution (1890), which took both the Prussian (1850) and British constitutions as basic models.[16] However, it had but a meager influence in the practice of the rule of law as well as in people’s daily living. So, the short and deliberately gradual history of struggles for personal rights and protection against government/society's impositions has yet to transform Japan into a champion of universal and individual freedom.[17][18][19] According to constitutional scholar, Shigenori Matsui,

People tend to view the bill of rights as a moral imperative and not as a judicial norm. The people also tend to rely upon bureaucrats to remedy social problems, including even human rights violations, rather than the court.

— Shigenori Matsui, “The protection of ‘Fundamental human rights’ in Japan.”[20]

Despite the divergences between Japan's social culture and the Liberal Constitutionalism that it purports to have adopted, the country has moved toward closing the gap between the notion and the practice of the law. The trend is more evident in the long term. Among several examples, the Diet (bicameral legislature) ratified the International Bill of Human Rights in 1979 and then it passed the Law for Equal Opportunity in Employment for Men and Women in 1985, measures that were heralded as major steps toward a democratic and participatory society. In 2015, moreover, it reached an agreement with Korea to compensate for abuses related to the so-called “women of comfort” that took place during the Japanese occupation of the peninsula.[21] However, human rights group, and families of the survivors condemned the agreement as patronizing and insulting.[22]

On its official site, the Japanese government has identified various human rights problems. Among these are child abuses (e.g., bullying, corporal punishment, child sexual abuse, child prostitution, and child pornography), frequent neglect and ill-treatment of elderly persons and individuals with disabilities, Dowa claims (discrimination against the Burakumin), Ainu people (indigenous people in Japan), foreign nationals, HIV/AIDS carriers, Hansen's disease patients, persons released from prison after serving their sentence, crime victims, people whose human rights are violated using the Internet, the homeless, individuals with identity disorders, and women. Also, the government lists systematic problems with gender biases and the standard reference to sexual preferences for jobs and other functions in society.[23]

Human rights organizations, national and foreign, expand the list to include human rights violations that relate to government policies, as in the case of daiyo kangoku system (substitute prison) and the methods of interrogating crime suspects.[24] The effort of these agencies and ordinary people seem to pay off. In 2016, the U.S. Department of State released a report stating that Japan's human right record is showing signs of improvement.[25]

Australia[edit]

Although Australia does not have an enshrined Bill of Rights or similar binding legal document, civil liberties are assumed as protected through a series of rules and conventions. Australia was a key player and signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)

The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

  • the right to freedom of religion and;
  • the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)

Certain High Court interpretations of the Constitution have allowed for implied rights such as freedom of speech and the right to vote to be established, however others such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association are yet to be identified.

Refugee issues

Within the past decade Australia has experienced increasing contention regarding its treatment of those seeking asylum. Although Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (1951), successive governments have demonstrated an increasing tightening of borders; particularly against those who seek passage via small water vessels.

The Abbott Government (2013) like its predecessors (the Gillard and Howard Governments) has encountered particular difficulty curbing asylum seekers via sea, increasingly identified as "illegal immigration". The recent involvement of the Australian Navy in refugee rescue operations has many human rights groups such as Amnesty International concerned over the "militarisation" of treatment of refugees. The current "turn-back" policy is particularly divisive, as it involves placing refugees in government lifeboats and turning them towards Indonesia. Despite opposition however, the Abbott government's response has so far seen a reduction in the amount of potential refugees undertaking the hazardous cross to Australia, which is argued by the government as an indicator for its policy success.

Europe[edit]

European Convention on Human Rights[edit]

The European Convention on Human Rights, to which almost all European countries belong (apart from Belarus), enumerates a number of civil liberties and is of varying constitutional force in different European states.

Czech Republic[edit]

Following the Velvet Revolution, a constitutional overhaul took place in Czechoslovakia. In 1991, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms was adopted, having the same legal standing as the Constitution. The Czech Republic has kept the Charter in its entirety following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as Act No. 2/1993 Coll. (Constitution being No. 1).

France[edit]

France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen listed many civil liberties and is of constitutional force.

Germany[edit]

The German constitution, the "Grundgesetz" (lit. "Base Law"), starts with an elaborate listing of civil liberties and states in sec. 1 "The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all public authority." Following the "Austrian System", the people have the right to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") if they feel their civil rights are being violated. This procedure has shaped German law considerably over the years.

United Kingdom[edit]

Main article: Civil liberties in the United Kingdom

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom date back to Magna Carta in 1215 and 17th century common law and statute law, such as the 1628 Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Bill of Rights 1689. Parts of these laws remain in statute today and are supplemented by other legislation and conventions that collectively form the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom. In addition, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which covers both human rights and civil liberties. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the great majority of Convention rights directly into UK law.

In June 2008 the then Shadow Home Secretary David Davisresigned his parliamentary seat over what he described as the "erosion of civil liberties" by the then Labour government, and was re-elected on a civil liberties platform (although he was not opposed by candidates of other major parties). This was in reference to anti-terrorism laws and in particular the extension to pre-trial detention, that is perceived by many to be an infringement of habeas corpus established in Magna Carta.

Russia[edit]

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees in theory many of the same rights and civil liberties as the U.S. except to bear arms, i.e.: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom to choose language, to due process, to a fair trial, privacy, freedom to vote, right for education, etc. However, human rights groups like Amnesty International have warned that Vladimir Putin has seriously curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association amidst growing authoritarianism.[26]

North America[edit]

Canada[edit]

The Constitution of Canada includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees many of the same rights as the U.S. constitution, with the notable exceptions of protection against establishment of religion. However, the Charter does protect freedom of religion. The Charter also omits any mention of, or protection for, property.

United States[edit]

Main article: Civil liberties in the United States

The United States Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights, which are those rights, privileges and immunities held by all people, in distinction to political rights, which are the rights that inhere to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters.[27] Before universal suffrage, this distinction was important, since many people were ineligible to vote but still were considered to have the fundamental freedoms derived from the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This distinction is less important now that Americans enjoy near universal suffrage, and civil liberties are now taken to include the political rights to vote and participate in elections. Because Indian tribal governments retain sovereignty over tribal members, the U.S. Congress in 1968 enacted a law that essentially applies most of the protections of the Bill of Rights to tribal members, to be enforced mainly by tribal courts.[28]

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan on August 10, 1988. The act was passed by Congress to issue a public apology for those of Japanese ancestry who lost their property and liberty due to discriminatory actions by the United States Government during the internment period.

This act also provided many other benefits within various sectors of the government. Within the treasury it establishes a civil liberties public education fund. It directs the Attorney General to identify and locate each individual affected by this act and to pay them $20,000 from the civil liberties public education fund. It also established a board of directors who is responsible for making disbursements from this fund. Finally, it requires that all documents and records that are created or received by the commission be kept in the United States archives.[29]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^Hugh Starkey, Professor of Citizenship and Human Rights Education at UCL Institute of Education, London. "Magna Carta and Human rights legislation". British Library. Retrieved 22 November 2016. 
  2. ^Constitution of India-Part III Fundamental Rights.
  3. ^"Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69". World Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2006-05-25.  This was the case where public interest litigation was introduced (date of ruling 15 December 1995).
  4. ^Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-25
  5. ^"Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003"(PDF). Rajya Sabha. p. 5. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2006-04-25. Retrieved 2006-05-25. 
  6. ^"Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69". World Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2006-05-25.  This was the case where Fundamental Rights were enforced against private individuals (date of ruling 15 December 1995).
  7. ^Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala; AIR 1973 S.C. 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225 – In what became famously known as the "Fundamental Rights case", the Supreme Court decided that the basic structure of the constitution was unamendable.
  8. ^Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-24
  9. ^Ellington, Lucien (2002). apan: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p. 209. ISBN 1576072711. 
  10. ^Law, David S., The Myth of the Imposed Constitution (May 26, 2013). The Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions (Denis Galligan & Mila Versteeg eds., Cambridge University Press 2013, pp. 239-68); Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-05-01. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2270399
  11. ^Yokota, Yozo, & Chiyuki Aoi (2000). "Japan's foreign policy towards human rights: uncertain changes"(PDF). Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy: Foundations of Peace, edited by David Forsythe. United Nations University Press: Chapter 5. 
  12. ^Haddad, Mary Alice (2012). Building Democracy in Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 59. ISBN 1107014077. 
  13. ^"Japan veering away from global human rights standards, says Amnesty International". The Japan Times. Kyodo News. February 25, 2015. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  14. ^Suzanne Trimel (July 25, 2014). "UN Urges End to Discrimination Against LGBT Individuals in Japan". Analysis. Outright International. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  15. ^Osumi, Magdalena (June 26, 2015). "U.S. rights report slams Japan on child abuse, prison conditions, asylum system". News report. Japan Times. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  16. ^Kazuhiro Takii and David Noble, The Meiji Constitution: The Japanese Experience of the West and the Shaping of the Modern State (Tokyo, Japan: International House of Japan, 2007), 181.
  17. ^Andrew Gordon, Postwar Japan As History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, p. 91.
  18. ^Henderson, Dan Fenno (2015). "Chapter 11: Law and Political Modernization in Japan". In Ward, Robert E. Political Development in Modern Japan: Studies in the Modernization of Japan. Princeton University Press. pp. 441–45. ISBN 1400871662. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  19. ^Ugo Dessì, Japanese Religions and Globalization. London: Routledge, 2013, p. 64.
  20. ^“The protection of ‘Fundamental human rights’ in Japan,” a chapter in Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA, edited by Peerenboom, R. P., Carole Petersen, and Hongyi Chen (London: Routledge, 2006), 149
  21. ^"Japan and South Korea agree WW2 'comfort women' deal". BBC. December 28, 2015. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  22. ^Sanghani, Radhika (December 29, 2015). "The horrific story of Korea's 'comfort women' - forced to be sex slaves during World War Two". Telegraph. London. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  23. ^Government of Japan (March 6, 2009). "Major Human Rights Problems". Human Rights Bureau. Ministry of Justice, Japan. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  24. ^Jeffrey Flynn, Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach (London: Routledge, 2014), 114.
  25. ^Wanklyn, Alastair (April 14, 2016). "Japan human rights improve but problems persist: U.S. State Department". Japan Times. Retrieved July 5, 2016. 
  26. ^Putin rolling back civil rights, warns Amnesty | World news | The Guardian
  27. ^America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
  28. ^Robert J. McCarthy, Civil Rights in Tribal Courts; The Indian Bill of Rights at 30 Years, 34 IDAHO LAW REVIEW 465 (1998).
  29. ^Foley, Thomas. "Civil Liberties Act of 1987 - Conference Report". Congress.gov. Retrieved 2015-06-18. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Dershowitz, Alan. "Preserving Civil Liberties."Reflections on the Fractured Landscape, spec. sec. of Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle Review, September 28, 2001. Accessed August 11, 2006.
  • Smith, Jean Edward, and Herbert M. Levine. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Debated. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.

External links[edit]

Broken Liberty: Istanbul Archaeology Museum
Huge rallies like this one in Kolkata are commonplace in India.