The Declaration Of Human Rights

Human rights have been a perpetual concern for the contemporary global society in terms of its meaning, and interpretation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) define human rights as “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” . Governments have different forms to protect these human rights; United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand following many other countries obtain a form of Bill of Rights or charter of rights. Australia does not have said document. However, there are other forms of laws which protect human rights in Australia.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was the product of an oppressed people who were tired of living under a government in which they had no voice. During the Ancién Regime in France, there social classes, called estates, greatly divided the people on the basis of power and wealth. The first estate being the clergy, the second nobility, and the third estate being everyone else in the country of France (“The French Revolution” 23:20). The first two estates made up 3% of the population, while the third estate made up 97%, yet the first two estates held all the power. The French government at the time was an absolute monarchy, meaning the king derived his power from god and could exercise it without other constituted bodies having a right to challenge him (Introduction: Louis XIV and French Absolutism p.205). However, France was in such a state of crises in the late 18th century that Louis XVI called together the estates general, an assembly where all three estates were represented, for the first time in one hundred years (“The French Revolution” 23:00). Robes Pierre, a representative of the third estate, insisted that the nobles and clergy begin to pay taxes, but since the first and second estate held two thirds of the vote, he was quickly dismissed. After six weeks of meeting without achieving anything for the state, the third estate representatives become silenced by the first two estates. Enraged, they move next door to a tennis court and make “The Tennis Court

This essay will argue the reasons behind the notwithstanding clause remaining within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this paper, I will provide reasons as to why the clause should be kept within the Charter beginning with the arguments that it is an essential element in critical policy decisions being made by politicians and it 's hard to remove which requires the amending formula to be used if changes are to be made. On the other side, its use in policy can create grave and problematic judicial activism in the eyes of those who oppose it. In the next few paragraphs, I will define my terms, introduce a brief history of the charter and the notwithstanding clause and describe the positions from both sides regarding its use,

Being born in the United States automatically grants you certain rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and press, unlike being born in another country. Many presidents and people fought to have these basic rights granted to us. One may question why it is important to have freedom of speech and religion, well here is why.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has significantly enhanced the power of the judiciary in Canada. Within the Supreme Court of Canada judges have been given the judiciary power and this amount of power is not excessive. Again, in the Supreme Court of Canada judges are federally appointed. Most of these appointments are made by the minister of Justice after Cabinet consultation and approval. In some other cases, appointments are made by the Prime Minister.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of Canada’s written constitution called the Constitution Act in 1982 it was the second main aspect of the Act and it guaranteed fundamental, democratic, legal, egalitarian, and linguistic rights and freedoms against government intrusion, it imposed formal new limitations on the governments in interaction with its citizens. The charter has made society more equitable for visible minorities through its use of its Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Section 15 which say that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of law without discrimination, but does the Charter really represent Canada’s egalitarian society or are we just saying we care without actually taking action. In this paper it will be shown that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not made Canadian society more equitable and will discuss the right side and the left side of the debate, while agreeing with the left sided critiques. The right winged perspective on the Charter argues that the groups are not seeking equality, but, instead, are asking judges to grant them political advantages through favorable Charter decisions ( Smithey, S. I., 2001, p. 2) while the left winged perspective is the Charter not only does not go far enough, but actually retards egalitarian progress in Canada and that the Charter is essentially a classically liberal document designed to constrain state action rather than to require the

The phenomenon of entrenching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not new to Canadian citizens, but it is a notion that is perceived in several ways. Many view it as a feature that disregards the fundamental right to democracy, an integral part of Canada’s political system. A functioning democracy is an important factor in providing citizens with the utmost rights and freedoms deserved. Society’s full potential is not being achieved if there are individuals who believe their principle of democracy is being violated. This violation nonetheless, true or not, should not be ignored.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is how effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect your individual rights? To exactly know how effectively it protects your rights you can look at situations where it has protected and has not protected the rights of Canadians. Within the Middle East, the largest population of the men and women are Muslim. The Muslim religion suggests that women wear a veil or hijab, which is a headscarf that only exposes a woman’s eyes, accompanied by a burqa, which is a full body cloak. The sole purpose of the clothing is to cover a woman’s feminine features from men’s eyes. The Quran, an Islamic scripture, supports and slightly obligates the uniform by saying that women are to be conservative, “let them wear their head covering over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments” (Quran). It could be inferred that women

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched under the CA 1982 act in the Canadian constitution is seen as a decisive indicator of national identity by the majority of Canadians. The charter’s role in Canadian society ranges from providing individuals with intrinsic human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of belief and acts particularly as a concrete limit on ‘tyranny of the majority’, advocating and enforcing basic rights of individuals and minorities. It is however worthy to note that CA 1982’s involvement as a platform to increased activism of the Supreme court in Canada is highly controversial. Employing the charter as a basis to the interpretation of different situations, the Canadian Supreme Court has in many occasions

“Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of happiness,” is one of the most important parts of the declaration. That means that citizens have the right to all those things. It is a natural right. The words of the Declaration of Independence mean the right freedom, justice, equality, security, protection, and fair government. I think the two most important words are Rights and equality.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution and it was added to the Constitution in 1982. The Constitution has many laws about the essential guidelines one must follow in our country. It also governs how the government/ organizations should treat their citizens. The Charter allows the citizens and newcomers to feel like they are appreciated and also safe. However, there are situations where the Charter cannot protect you. The Charter can be stretched and can be looked at from different perspectives which is why these cases are very controversial. In Canada, we have many levels of courts so if someone was rejected by a lower court, they can appeal to a higher one. Cases that include an individual that feels as if their rights haven’t been respected take months because the appeal to present their case in front of a higher court can take weeks. It is the understanding of the individual that the if he/she brings a case to the court, they will win because courts are equal and unbiased but when that is not always the case. There are many cases when the judge cannot decide because both the challenger and the law are correct. In today’s society, equality issues are ever growing, these cases are brought based on section 15 of the charter that promises Canadians are fair and equal trial regardless of the differences. Decisions are very tough, so they are usually made on the grounds of evidence, statutes and precedent cases.

Even though the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen never received the chance to be implemented, it reflects the ___ of change that had occurred within the first five years of the French Revolution; through the ___ we are able to understand the mindset of the men from the National Convention ( 221). Cahier of the Parish of St. Germain d’Airan was written in accordance to the authority of King Louis XVI; members of the community gathered to create the doctrine and to show “reciprocal love” through contributions to the state ( 55). Members of the community felt like King Louis XVI was having the doctrine created out of the goodness of his heart solely.

France’s, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, played an integral role in the development of democracy and the pursuit of liberty throughout Europe. This document was written and introduced by General Lafayette as a result of the French Revolution. The French Constituent Assembly passed it in August of 1789. Influenced by Thomas Jefferson, the American Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers, the document reiterates the values of the French Revolution. Declaring that the rights of man should be universal and remain valid no matter the time or place. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was a very purposeful document expressing many of the ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted in 1789 by the National Assembly, explicitly defines “the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man” (Declaration, p. 1). Two philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx, object the document, especially its usage of natural rights, by presenting different arguments against its language and function. Bentham centers his argument around the Declaration’s promotion of anti-legal rights and its vagueness in description in his essay “Anarchical Fallacies.” Marx criticizes the Declaration’s perpetuation of social alienation and for not pursuing human emancipation in “On the Jewish Question.” Of the two arguments, Marx presents a better and more convincing argument than Bentham. Marx advocates for complete human emancipation beyond political emancipation whereas Bentham does not go beyond the criticism of the legislators, of their use of language and design, as opposed to the law itself.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as the current gold standard for every individual’s rights. Focusing on culture, one may see that cultural rights are not clearly defined and are oftentimes in conflict with other types of rights. In this paper, I will first discuss the United Nations’ use of ‘cultural’ in its universal human rights in relation to the concept of cultural relativism. Then, using South African and American practices, such as virginity testing and discriminatory criminal justice system respectively, I will describe and analyze practices violate the UN’s universal human rights in addition to the practices’ use for the community or society as a whole. Lastly, I will compare the American Anthropological Association’s rights to culture to the UN’s universal human rights by analyzing the limitations of each.