Right to equality refers to equality in the eyes of law, discarding any unfairness on grounds of caste, race, religion, place of birth, and sex. Equality before law means that state cannot refuse to provide equality before the law and equal defence of the law to any person within the territories of India. So when we charge a person for blasphemy then we violate his right to equality because we don’t give him equality in law as these laws are subjective and inconsistent laws. When a person is charged for an offence of blasphemy then his right to equality gets violated because like the other people of the society the person accused of blasphemy is not allowed to express his views in the society. Right to equality is a right guaranteed under article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Right which states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Offenders under 21 years of age cannot be sentenced to detention unless the sentencing judge is of the opinion no other sentence is appropriate. The type of detention applied will depend on the age of the offender and by the procedure by which they were prosecuted. (p.132) Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes provision for the detention of children in certain cases, these may include : Where a chid is convicted on indictment and the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, it may sentence him to be detained for such a period which shall specify in the sentence; and the child during that period be liable to be detained in such a place and on such conditions as the Secretary
In the end, I will conclude that the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson is a pernicious decision. A general interpretation of the Equal Protection of Laws clause would mean that every individual must be treated in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A breach of this clause would take place if the individual is forbidden from entering a certain area only because he/she belongs to a particular race etc. However, the US Supreme Courts have interpreted this clause in a different way. The equal protection clause was interpreted as an equal application of all laws.
Article 2 of the said Convention ensures that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples. They have the right of existence, of living free of discrimination under international law. Hence, there is no scope to ignore international obligation by saying that there is no protection of indigenous people rights. International laws provide indigenous peoples rights protection both explicitly and implicitly under various international treaties and declarations. Consequently, Indonesia as a member of the international community has the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of the indigenous
In terms of sovereign immunity courts must decline to hear cases against foreign sovereigns. This type of immunity applies to the head of a foreign state, government of a foreign state as well as specific governmental departments of a foreign state. It is important to draw a distinction between the terms iure imperii and iure gestonis, with the latter being a form of restrictive sovereignty and the former, absolute sovereignty which states that a foreign state and its agents are immune from any types of suits instituted against them. With regards to the courts there has been a divided opinion as to whether or not heads of state have immunity form international crimes that are committed. On the one hand, international courts have said that there is no such immunity available whilst, the position in the International Court of Justice differs allowing for heads of state immunity under customary international law.
Waiving Miranda Rights: Waiving Miranda rights is not an option, though, until the family has been knowledgeable of those privileges, and are fully comprehends them. Few of the authorities allow an indirect waiving of these rights, which actually means that a accused’s performance indicates that he wants to capitulation those rights, even if he has not explicitly stated this. For example: Juan is under arrest for burglary, at which point he is understand his Miranda rights. Right away after being read his constitutional rights, Jarrod makes declarations that are self-incriminating, deprived of an attorney present. In this example of Miranda rights, Juan’s activities imply a renunciation, as he first unspoken his rights, then immediately chose to express.
This is a big debate with may radical groups who want to voice their extreme views, such as the KKK who use their First Amendment rights to encourage racism towards African Americans, whether this be through language like racial slurs or it be by denouncing and belittling them as an entire race. The idea that words that are meant to provoke feelings of rage are protected by the First Amendment are totally false, according to Steven Pinker’s book “The Stuff of Thought” the U.S supreme court recognizes five kinds of unprotected speech one of which “are advocacy of imminent lawless behavior and “fighting words,” because they are intended to trigger behavior reflexively rather than to exchange ideas”( 333). Ultimately, what is discussed in this passage is that if you are trying to encourage destructive actions of another person through offending them with hurtful language instead of trying to properly and politely prove a point than your actions are not protected by our First
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. This was stated by the United Nations in 1945 in which a person is naturally entitled with human rights simply because they are a human being and this should be expected in all human beings. Human rights are as old as human civilization; but their use and relevance have been well defined during the recent years. It has gathered more importance after the Second World War period, after the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
My second reason for supporting LGBT/ same-sex marriage is the reason for discrimination against marriage. The UDHR article number 7 illustrates that all people are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination. Furthermore, article 1 of the UDHR also indicates that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. We should act towards one another in a spirit of a brother. By denying the same right as anybody else just because you are different is a clear form of discrimination, and it goes against the constitution.
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation, must begin by subduing the freedom of speech”, written in the Cato’s letter during the pre-revolution era (Gordon). It was to criticize the British political system. These ideas were so important for revolutionary political, it was even used as a reference in the draft of First Amendment (“Freedom of the Press”). Additionally, Cato’s letter considered “this sacred privilege [Freedom of Speech] is so essential to free government”, that it is the fundamental of a free nation; however, ideas such as government censorship has challenged the First Amendment throughout the years. How much power should the government have?
It is inequitable for our government to decide on whether or not homosexuals can be married. Everyone should be able to receive the same benefits and acceptance regardless of their sexuality so granting legal marriage rights under the law must extend to gays and lesbians to ensure that all citizens enjoy full human
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
If this law is used excessively, there is a high chance that the nation will return to its dark period of discrimination and will jeopardize people’s equality. The probable chance of discrimination stems from the American population’s tendency to be judgemental. As President Obama reminded the nation, every person in the nation is protected under a federal hate crime law that would make discrimination under this new law illegal. If the RFRAs become abused, the nation will just be creating more problems for
Justice Douglas who dissents, points out the good intention by the Court to make new definitions and formulations. However, it is worth to understand that nor the Constitution nor Bill of Rights mentions obscenity. Also, at the time when Bill of Rights was written there was no distinction between obscene materials and press, and that the 1st Amendment protected all types of press. Thus making obscene material to be equal with other types of press. Only constitutional amendment should the power to enact such guidelines that deal with censorship (O`Brien, 508).
Even in the context of the ticking bomb scenario, these international treaties would prohibit the use of torture as means of gaining information. Furthermore, United States constitutional law would also prohibit torture in the ticking bomb scenario on the basis of the due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prevents torturing of the ticking bomb terrorist on the premise of human dignity. These amendments provide everyone the right to life, liberty, and property. The problem with warranted torture is the fact that torture itself violates human dignity.