Occupy London Stock Exchange and the European Convention on Human Rights

Today the opposers were all in one large group, holding up signs and protesting. The group consisted of roughly a quarter

In “A Call for Unity” it is argued that matters such as this should only be pursued in the courts. In this it says that the citizens need to “find the proper channels,” which they believe can only be through court. They are in clear disapproval of demonstrations, saying “that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully

Protests are a way that many citizens have historically exercised their right to freedom of speech and as to voice their opinions on current matters in the U.S. as well as other nations. Protests help the uninformed get informed on specific issues, and try to persuade fellow citizens. What were some of the effective aspects of the protests that were portrayed in “The Matrix”, “Battle in Seattle” as well as those in “The Letter from Birmingham Jail”? What were the downfalls? An effective protest is one where an advocated idea gets across to the intended audience. Peaceful protests tend to have a better outcome than those that lead to violence.

The legitimacy of the ECJ to uphold EU legislation is a necessary component of effective human rights policy. The history of its increase in power is worth noting. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the ECJ’s location in Luxembourg, far from the political fray in Brussels and Strasburg, prevented it from becoming a strong body of the EU. Yet, throughout that time the court methodically built case-law that would lead to its surge in influence in the 1980s. The two most significant developments of the court during this time period were direct effect and supremacy. These twin pillars clarified the relationship between the national and EU legal orders.

What we learn from this excerpt about the protestors is that they were everyday blue collar workers that were provoked by the occupation of the British army in their colony and the crippling tax policies imposed on them. Most protestors were hardworking young men who demonstrated their aggression because of the crushing pressure of the British presence at the shipyard and ports. Another thing we learn is that the colonist on the following Friday before March 5 took their anger out and started a confrontation with British soldiers. The main reason for protest was the Stamp Act, which was a tax imposed on all paper documents and the Townshend Act, which imposed duties on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea. The protestors just wanted their

Protest have been used throughout our nation’s history in order to reform or implement the ideas that seem just to our nation’s people. The history of protest in America would mainly be because of the government, either the government would be at war or it would be legalizing and denying laws people just don’t like. Nowadays there are laws that have established Americans’ right to protest. As indicated by the article, Amending the Protest Law ”On January the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee approved government-drafted changes to the protest law (law no.107/2013) following a Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) verdict on 3 December requiring the Interior Ministry to seek a judicial order before banning any

Those who work for the government will rarely make moral decisions and that is when calm opposition must take place. All citizens have the right to assemble and protest, but cannot cause violent sparks of outrage. When protesting a person cannot cause harm to themselves or anyone else and also cannot cause damage to a person 's property. According to Civil Disobedience Citizens of

According to Cornell University Law School, “riots are three or more people using tactics of threat or terror to the public, which can take on labor disputes or political demonstrations” [w]hereas unlawful assembly is where three or more people meet with intention of carrying out an unlawful act to disturb the peace (CornellUniversityLaw.org). Riots and unlawful assembly places great exertion on peaceful assembly. It is vital to be knowledgeable of the first amendment and the aspects in it because if society does not recognize the its meaning or this case, what peaceful assembly is, then it will create more destruction. This limitation can further connect with the concept of affirmative

March 16 saw a demonstration in Montgomery, Alabama in which 580 demonstrators planned to march “from the Jackson Street Baptist Church to the Montgomery County Courthouse” (Reed 26). These protestors included a large number of northern college students. They met a police line a few blocks from the Courthouse and were forbidden from proceeding because “they did not have a parade permit” (Reed 26). Across the street came 40 or so students who planned on joining the group en route to the Courthouse. Eventually a few of the demonstrators dared to cross the street, led by James Forman who had organized the march. When it seemed the whole group would cross, police took action, with mounted officers and volunteers arriving at 1:12 pm. Riding into the small group of protestors, they forced most to withdraw, but a few stood fast around a utility pole where horsemen began to beat them. “A posseman

As an American citizen, we are guaranteed many freedoms through the Constitution. The first amendment in the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (US Const. amend. I). This means that all people have the right to assemble a protest peacefully, and Congress in unable to prevent this practice. However, in recent years this has become controversial because many residents question how much protesters can get away with before a demonstration becomes turbulent. Because of this question, there have been many cases in which law enforcement has become involved in rallies. This essay will explore when law enforcement became involved in rallies, and when they did not.

The First Amendment allows citizens the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. In other words, the government is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering with practices regarding religion, nonviolent protests/rallies, with what citizens have to say, and where citizens

The first amendment states,”People have the freedom of religion, speech, press; and the right to assemble peacefully and petition the government.”

In Lisa’s case, her conduct was appropriate when she first gathered with other 2500 protestors in a calm manner. Even though the Constitution does not directly protect the freedom of peaceful assembly, it has been an implied freedom of political discussion acknowledged by the High Court. However, when she began to interrupt traffic by herself while protesting, she could be considered accountable for endangering the safety of drivers, as well as, herself. The prosecution could argue that due to her behaviour it is appropriate for officers Lou and Eddie to give her an order of direction to “move on”. In contrast to this, Lisa’s charge was not this specific conduct as she obliged to the directions given by the officers. Due to Lisa obeying the officers’ instructions by stepping away from traffic, she was no longer in a position where her right to freedom of expression could be restricted. From the dialogue where Officer Lou says Lisa was lucky they didn’t arrest her and from no mention of any charges written down, it is assumed she was only verbally given a warning. Therefore, the officers had no authority to confiscate and destroy Lisa’s sign as it wasn’t related to the offence she was later charged for. It is debatable that Lisa’s right to freedom of

All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right to participate in legislation directly or indirectly (Article 6); no one was to be arrested without a judicial order (Article 7). Freedom of religion (Article 10) and freedom of speech (Article 11) were safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law.” The document reflects the interests of the elites who wrote it: property was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state only if an indemnity were given (Article 17); offices and position were opened to all citizens (Article 6). (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, p.

Also, civilians should avert from conflicts both in the religious and the cultural aspects by using suitable words. The reason the citizens are presented freedom of speech is not to pervert this freedom or manipulate the conception of it (Jackson, 2012). Residents can definitely insist on their beliefs or protest what they perceive as disagreeable policies, but they should demonstrate all of their opinions