Right To Equality Essay

The Equality Act 2010 shortens the existing laws and puts them all together in one piece of legislation. On the other hand, it makes the law resilient in some areas. This law protects employees from perception in workplace and in the world. Equality Act 2010 replaces all anti-discrimination laws within a single Act. This Act has 116 single pieces of legislations and has been put together into one Act which is known as Equality Act 2010. This Act has started to work in UK and EU in 2010 of October. In this Act it covers the main laws such as race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion/belief, age and equal pay.

What could be more important than the equality of rights for all American citizens? Women have tried without success for 80 years to be acknowledged as equals in our Constitution through an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Currently there is nothing in the United States Constitution that guarantees a woman the same rights as a man. The only equality women have with men is the right to vote. In order to protect women’s rights on the same level as men, I am in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution today.

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.

Two sections of the Indian Act are particularly discriminatory against Indigenous women. Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act states that women who marry outside of their band were to lose status, seize association with their own community, they lose ownership over any property located on the reserve and any property inherited that is located on the reserve land (Lawrence 2004: Jamieson 1978). These women would also lose access to any rights they had with status, including taking part in any band business or voting (Lawrence 2004: Jamieson 1978). Any children born to a woman who married outside her community would not be granted status or considered “Indian” in the eyes of the government and this woman and her children may be prohibited from returning to live with her family regardless of illness, need, divorce, death of her husband or separation (Jamieson 1978). Finally, through this section of the Indian act, upon marriage of an “outsider” an Indigenous woman loses her right to be buried on her reserve land with her ancestors (Jamieson 1978). Section 12(1)(a)(iv) also known as the “double mother clause” states that an “Indian born of a marriage entered into after September 4th, 1952 lost entitlement to registration at the age of 21 years if his/her mother and paternal grandmother were not entitled to registration as Indians before marriages” (Sterritt 2007).

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

The Constitutional Issue: This issue violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment because segregated schools for people of race are unconstitutional and unequal.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students. The court agreed that the student's rights should be protected and that ‘students do not shed their constitutional

The overall issue did Justice Vinson state in this case is the concept of the 14th Amendment which stipulates the equal protection clause. Thus, the petitioner will not get his full-constitutional right in the law school for Negroes that is not fully-equipped with facilities that will help him get his law degree. In addition, limited part-time educators for Negroes is unacceptable. Whereby, admission to the Texas University of Law School will provide him the best education that white people and other race achieved. Only then, that the 14th amendment will be

After conceding that Indian nations were neither summoned or encouraged to be a part of the Constitutional Convention and that the United States Constitution had never been ratified to include them, Native Americans held that the Constitution’s protections and liberties did not pertain to tribal governments. Native Americans had to formulate a way to defend themselves from any lawmaking power that desired to infringe on their basic rights. This prompted Native Americans to push for the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Its intention was to protect themselves from both the federal government and tribal governments. Along with the passage of the ICRA, the 1960’s saw an increase in Native American Migration. Native migration to urban areas prompted Native

Democracy stresses the equality of all individuals and insists that all men are created equal. Democracy does not persist on an equality of condition for all people or argue that all persons have a right to an equal share of worldly goods. Rather, its concept of equality insists that all are entitled to equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The democratic concept of equality holds that no person should be held back for any such arbitrary reasons as those based on race, color, religion, or gender. This concept of equality holds that each person must be free to develop himself or herself as fully as he or she can or cares to and that each person should be treated as the equal of all other persons by the law. We have come

Constitutional issues: The question addressed to the Court involved the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of educational opportunities?” the Court was asked to determine whether the segregation of schools was constitutional.

Sec. 3 Equal Rights is a civil liberty. The third section of the Texas Constitution is based on equal protection against government discrimination among men (sex, race, color, creed or national origin). In this case the government cannot take away citizens’ rights. The first amendment of the Bills of Rights gives people the right to practice any religion they chose to and government is prohibit to interfere in a person’s beliefs. In past court cases that freedom of religion was addressed dealing with the exclusion of prayers in public schools, the prohibition of polygamy, and the limitation of the use of drugs or snakes in religious rituals.

Today, Canada is known around the world as a cultural mosaic. As a nation it welcomes people of both sexes with all different beliefs, cultures, and religions. Creating a mature nation would require promoting equality of opportunity to all and giving help to those who were disadvantaged. However, Canada has not always been a welcoming and mature nation. In the past, women were not allowed to vote alongside men or run for political positions, due to the fact that they were not considered “persons”. As well, Aboriginal children were stipped from their homes, families, and identities so that they could assimilate all First Nations people. During the last century, women have gained more political rights, gained more respect from society, and

However this was not the only issue, among many others, the government policies also put prominence on many other parts aboriginal people’s lives. The policies were not general to this group of people but went more explicit to the genders. The gender discrimination took place when Indian Act specified the status of women and men after marriage. The two sections, 6(1) and 6(2), differentiate the genders and imitate inequalities. “The children of the women who married non-Indians before 1985 cannot pass along Indian status under section 6(2). The children of men do not face this same restriction as they are registered under section 6(1)”

Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg., Justice N. L. Untwalia, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice P. S. Kailasam, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud.