Civil Rights

[GGT]

1. Define what Civil Rights means to you. (Reasoning and examples encouraged.)

2. Should those rights be protected, expanded and/or restricted by law?

2(a) If yes, should those laws be decided by State or Federal legislation?
2(b) When there's a conflict, which trumps the other?
2(c) If no, explain why/why not.

[Flixy]

Might answer #1 more detailed later, but basically the rights to be treated equally and protecting your personal freedoms.

#2.. Rights are pretty much by definition defined, and therefore protected/restricted/expanded by laws (or treaties). Rights are not rights until they are law, basically (until then they can be things that should be civil rights, maybe). And since I am not American, I can't answer the rest.

[GGT]

Might answer #1 more detailed later, but basically the rights to be treated equally and protecting your personal freedoms.

#2.. Rights are pretty much by definition defined, and therefore protected/restricted/expanded by laws (or treaties). Rights are not rights until they are law, basically (until then they can be things that should be civil rights, maybe). And since I am not American, I can't answer the rest.

I almost titled this Human Rights....so people could chime in about international definitions of what's humane, including imprisonment or torture. Decided to start smaller, for obvious reasons. But Europeans can still say when their national laws should trump eurozone or international laws, or vice versa. That gets muddier, with immigration and travel, and privacy.

[Flixy]

AFAIK all European civil/human rights are in the ECHR, and all signatories (basically all European countries except Belarus) made the contents rights in their country by signing it, so it is part of their legal system too. Not sure what you are trying to say.

[GGT]

Didn't Finland decide to expand the definition of a civil right to include broadband/internet access? I'm asking more than saying....

One important civil right -- Voting -- has recently been changed by several US states. Dread started a thread on that a while ago, but didn't seem to connect those changes to restricting the right to vote.....which is protected by federal law. That's just an example, not intended to be a tangent.

[wiggin]

Flixy - I am not an international legal expert, but there appears to be at least some concept of 'inalienable' rights going back in legal tradition for a while - that is, rights that accrue to individuals whether or not they are legally recognized by a local government. These rights are often not respected, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

That being said, while there appear to be widely accepted rights (such as the UDHR) which might approach the level of customary international law (er, LF and Loki, please correct me if I'm wrong on this), but there are other protocols and the like which may be more 'optional' and can be enacted on a country-by-country basis.

[Loki]

Wikipedia claims it's part of customary law, but the IL people I know here don't agree (it was also far from the dominant view from the limited research I did on humanitarian interventions). As you say, there are more specific conventions that are generally recognized as being part of IL, such as the Genocide Convention. In Europe, the European Convention of Human Rights has the force of law, backed by the European Court of Human Rights, of which nearly all European countries are members (all except Belarus).

Flixy, you're referring to the concept of charter rights, which is widely accepted today. However, there's another concept called natural rights, and goes back at least to Thomas Hobbes. According to this view, human rights are innate.

[Flixy]

Thanks for the correction Though, correct me (again ) if I'm wrong, aren't natural rights pretty susceptible to cultural differences? Which would make them less 'natural rights', but more like shared moral values of a certain culture at a certain moment. I vaguely recall criticism on even the UDHR for being western-culture-oriented, but could be wrong (it's 6 AM and my brain isn't working very well at the moment).

And GGT, I still do not understand anything from your previous post, I'm sorry.

[LittleFuzzy]

1. Define what Civil Rights means to you. (Reasoning and examples encouraged.)

2. Should those rights be protected, expanded and/or restricted by law?

2(a) If yes, should those laws be decided by State or Federal legislation?
2(b) When there's a conflict, which trumps the other?
2(c) If no, explain why/why not.

Rights pertaining to the ability to access and participate in civil and political society. Most classically this pertains to the ability to vote wrt democratic systems. In non-democratic systems an equivalent right might be considered the right to petition sources of authority. I don't really get what you're going for with question 2.

Wiggin, in general civil rights are not accorded status as CIL. Some human rights may be, and there may be some limited forums with strictly selected participants *Loki mentioned the ECHR* that will treat various civil or human rights as CIL within their own boundaries, but you're not going to get anywhere in most courts on a civil rights claim by citing customary law. Specific civil rights pertain to specific political and civil systems and since there's nothing like a common system, there can't be enough of a general consensus for the various rights to be considered "customary."

[Loki]

Thanks for the correction Though, correct me (again ) if I'm wrong, aren't natural rights pretty susceptible to cultural differences? Which would make them less 'natural rights', but more like shared moral values of a certain culture at a certain moment. I vaguely recall criticism on even the UDHR for being western-culture-oriented, but could be wrong (it's 6 AM and my brain isn't working very well at the moment).

And GGT, I still do not understand anything from your previous post, I'm sorry.

The very idea of human rights is susceptible to cultural differences, but I think most of the times those differences are invoked, the people invoking them are being self-serving (and frequently wrong).

Fuzzball, there is something close to a consensus that committing genocide and ethnic cleansing are violations of customary IL and should be addressed by the international community.

[earthJoker]

1. Define what Civil Rights means to you. (Reasoning and examples encouraged.)

I don't want to go into details here, basicly: Rights of freedom, equality, privacy and dignity.

2. Should those rights be protected, expanded and/or restricted by law?

They must be protected by law (constitution) as this is the very basis to enforce them. A right that isn't enforced is useless.

In a previous discussion I already said that I don't believe that civil or human rights are natural. The only natural laws I believe in are physics/chemistry ect.

I believe that human/civil rights are the very result of modern civilization. If you are born in such a civilization, civil rights are indeed innate. You (as an individual) don't have to gain that right. But a society a whole does have to fight for it.

That civil rights can be "derived from the laws of nature" is IMO wishful thinking.

2(a) If yes, should those laws be decided by State or Federal legislation?
2(b) When there's a conflict, which trumps the other?
2(c) If no, explain why/why not.

Federal (not Cantonal )

[wiggin]

Rights pertaining to the ability to access and participate in civil and political society. Most classically this pertains to the ability to vote wrt democratic systems. In non-democratic systems an equivalent right might be considered the right to petition sources of authority. I don't really get what you're going for with question 2.

Wiggin, in general civil rights are not accorded status as CIL. Some human rights may be, and there may be some limited forums with strictly selected participants *Loki mentioned the ECHR* that will treat various civil or human rights as CIL within their own boundaries, but you're not going to get anywhere in most courts on a civil rights claim by citing customary law. Specific civil rights pertain to specific political and civil systems and since there's nothing like a common system, there can't be enough of a general consensus for the various rights to be considered "customary."

The very idea of human rights is susceptible to cultural differences, but I think most of the times those differences are invoked, the people invoking them are being self-serving (and frequently wrong).

Fuzzball, there is something close to a consensus that committing genocide and ethnic cleansing are violations of customary IL and should be addressed by the international community.

I think I was being lazy with my terminology, and I'm nearly positive that Flixy and GGT were as well. LF makes a cogent point that distinguishes civil rights from the broader category of human rights; I would assume that Loki's example of e.g. genocide as not fitting into traditional definitions of civil rights; thus, even if they are part of CIL in some cases, they would not be a case of civil rights being part of CIL.

I think it's pretty clear that some civil rights are dependent on the society, but I might also argue that some basic civil rights should seem to be natural rights and part of CIL even if they aren't currently considered such. For example, many countries have a concept of freedom from discrimination, which on the face of it seems like it should be pretty universal. Yet it gets tricky when you start to think about which groups should be protected - in the West we generally accept race, religion, and gender, but we bicker about things like sexual orientation and celebrate discrimination on the basis of, say, intelligence. In other societies the list of protected groups may be quite different. On the other hand, I would argue that something as basic as freedom of thought or expression should be considered a natural right and part of CIL even if it isn't.

[Loki]

I was using the simple Freedom House breakdown of rights into civil rights and political liberties, with the former including all rights not relating directly to the political process. One could make the case that genocide is simply a more extreme violation of freedom to life.

On the one hand, I think you'd be surprised with the number of countries that are quite happy to discriminate against anyone who doesn't have the power to stop them. There are also quite a few societies where a decent portion of the population would say that stability trumps freedom of expression. On the other hand, I think they're backward, uncivilized societies and we shouldn't pretend otherwise for cultural relativist reasons. Of course I generally don't think that the US government should do anything about it, except perhaps in extreme situations.

Is no one going to talk about the difference between civil/political rights and social/economic rights? Or group rights? After all, I'm currently grading final exams where this was one of the questions.

[wiggin]

I assumed that most people agreed that - for now - social and economic rights (e.g. right to healthcare) are far less universal in application, no?

[Flixy]

The very idea of human rights is susceptible to cultural differences, but I think most of the times those differences are invoked, the people invoking them are being self-serving (and frequently wrong).

What exactly do you mean by 'wrong' in this context?

I think I was being lazy with my terminology, and I'm nearly positive that Flixy and GGT were as well. LF makes a cogent point that distinguishes civil rights from the broader category of human rights; I would assume that Loki's example of e.g. genocide as not fitting into traditional definitions of civil rights; thus, even if they are part of CIL in some cases, they would not be a case of civil rights being part of CIL.

I think it's pretty clear that some civil rights are dependent on the society, but I might also argue that some basic civil rights should seem to be natural rights and part of CIL even if they aren't currently considered such. For example, many countries have a concept of freedom from discrimination, which on the face of it seems like it should be pretty universal. Yet it gets tricky when you start to think about which groups should be protected - in the West we generally accept race, religion, and gender, but we bicker about things like sexual orientation and celebrate discrimination on the basis of, say, intelligence. In other societies the list of protected groups may be quite different. On the other hand, I would argue that something as basic as freedom of thought or expression should be considered a natural right and part of CIL even if it isn't.

It's not that I'm lazy, I just don't know the terminology well..

I was using the simple Freedom House breakdown of rights into civil rights and political liberties, with the former including all rights not relating directly to the political process. One could make the case that genocide is simply a more extreme violation of freedom to life.

On the one hand, I think you'd be surprised with the number of countries that are quite happy to discriminate against anyone who doesn't have the power to stop them. There are also quite a few societies where a decent portion of the population would say that stability trumps freedom of expression. On the other hand, I think they're backward, uncivilized societies and we shouldn't pretend otherwise for cultural relativist reasons. Of course I generally don't think that the US government should do anything about it, except perhaps in extreme situations.

Thing is, you start with 'I think', so you probably already realize that plenty of people will disagree with you there Not that I agree with it, but I can imagine why people would for example consider stability more important, especially in certain situations.

Is no one going to talk about the difference between civil/political rights and social/economic rights? Or group rights? After all, I'm currently grading final exams where this was one of the questions.

Sure teacher, explain it all!

[Loki]

What exactly do you mean by 'wrong' in this context?

In the context of political rights, the consensus view until the 1970s was that Catholics didn't want democracy. Then Iberia and Latin America became democratic. Then the view was that Confucians didn't want democracy; within a decade, Taiwan became democratic. We were told Arabs don't want democracy, and look at the Middle East now.

As for the self-serving component, it's usually the elites claiming that their people don't want basic rights. I don't know too many people who like getting tortured or arbitrarily arrested.

I assumed that most people agreed that - for now - social and economic rights (e.g. right to healthcare) are far less universal in application, no?

It's less of an issue today with the Soviet bloc gone, but there were huge debates about it in the 1970s and 1980s. Even now, there are numerous socialists out there who think social/economic rights are at least as important as civil/political rights.

As for group rights, they're becoming more accepted over the last few decades, particularly when it comes to indigenous groups.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzball, there is something close to a consensus that committing genocide and ethnic cleansing are violations of customary IL and should be addressed by the international community.

That's why I said "some human rights may be." The right to life is not a civil right. It has nothing to do with participating in civil and political society. It goes far deeper than that. I consider civil rights and human rights to be distinct *albeit overlapping in some areas as is true with all kinds of rights* categories of rights.

[GGT]

Flixy, you mentioned civil/human and ECHR, and I explained why this wasn't titled Human Rights at the start...but it's the logical expansion of how we define rights.

I was using the simple Freedom House breakdown of rights into civil rights and political liberties, with the former including all rights not relating directly to the political process. One could make the case that genocide is simply a more extreme violation of freedom to life.

On the one hand, I think you'd be surprised with the number of countries that are quite happy to discriminate against anyone who doesn't have the power to stop them. There are also quite a few societies where a decent portion of the population would say that stability trumps freedom of expression. On the other hand, I think they're backward, uncivilized societies and we shouldn't pretend otherwise for cultural relativist reasons. Of course I generally don't think that the US government should do anything about it, except perhaps in extreme situations.

Is no one going to talk about the difference between civil/political rights and social/economic rights? Or group rights? After all, I'm currently grading final exams where this was one of the questions.

Go for it! I'm especially interested in the bolded part, where civil rights *surrounding marriage--and sexuality* are now part of the political process/legislation, and affect social/economic rights. Example: gay military personnel not being treated equally in family benefits or married housing, gay couples not being able to use marital tax deductions, etc.

Fuzzy--that's the gist of Q #2, when federal and state laws conflict, and if states should be legislating civil rights in the first place.




edit to add this example:

Virginia’s Republican-controlled House rejected the judicial nomination of a gay Richmond prosecutor early Tuesday morning, plunging the critical swing state into the middle of the national debate about the civil rights of gay Americans....

Mr. Thorne-Begland disclosed his sexual orientation as a naval officer nearly 20 years ago during an appearance on ABC’s “Nightline,” in a challenge to the military’s ban on service by homosexuals. He was discharged honorably from the Navy after the disclosure, reinstated by a federal court, and then discharged again under the subsequent “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He also served on the board of Equality Virginia, a gay rights nonprofit group.

“The only conclusions I can come to is that he was not supported because he was gay,” said Delegate Charniele Herring, a Democrat who voted for him.

But conservatives, including Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican from Prince William County, argued that those aspects of his biography meant that he would not be able to be impartial, and might even engage in activism, if he became a judge. Mr. Marshall, together with several fellow Republicans from his county, a number of them former military men, led the charge against Mr. Thorne-Begland on Tuesday morning.

“It’s about a pattern of behavior that is just notorious for homosexual advocacy,” Mr. Marshall said. He added that Mr. Thorne-Begland had misrepresented himself on his application for military service, joining the Navy despite the ban on homosexuals in service. “The fact that he defied his oath and could not have been candid on the application — that’s highly problematic, and it stays with you,” Mr. Marshall said....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/us...mv&ref=general