#Fundamental Rights

[ambidextrousarcher]

Pertinent Issues I and My Fraternity Face

The above picture states, in simple words, my right as an Indian citizen. (For those of you who might be used to US-centric posts and thoughts alone, I mean a citizen of the country India. In Southeast Asia.)

However, I have felt, throughout my life, and more strongly in the recent past, that as a daughter of the nation and young woman who is a doctor, especially a doctor in training aka an intern, that a lot of these rights are not being met.

I think I would like to enumerate how a lot of circumstances violate the rights of a very large section of the population of this country, more than half of it to be exact, if only to raise my voice, futile though it might be.

I belong to three groups, all of which I believe fall under vulnerable population.

1. I am a young woman.

I feel the fact that there is one rape every sixteen minutes in my country violates my right, our right to freedom and equality. For the right to freedom means I can live my life and enjoy personal liberties without any obstacles.

However, that seems to be hardly the case, because the response to the above fact about rape is restriction of our freedom and equality. How? Because the response I have heard by and large in the society, even by people I love, to such incidents is unequivocal and the same:

Don’t go outside at night. Don’t go outside with a boy. Don’t dress in a particular manner. You should always be alert. Always be polite, because what if someone stronger than you, a man, is offended and decides to sexually assault you? What if you “deserve it”?

How, I ask, can any woman deserve such horrors? When we are not safe anywhere, not in our homes, not in our workplaces, not in means of transport, not on the roads, how, then, is our right to freedom and equality protected? Especially when said equality is against discrimination on the grounds of sex as well?

I think these pictures would do a better job than I at explaining what I mean.

Image credit to Arihant Publications for the first image, and WeAreYuva on Instagram for the rest of the images.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Kerala High Court Mandates Action on Transgender Reservation Rights in Education and Employment"

"Kerala High Court Mandates Action on Transgender Reservation Rights in Education and Employment"

🔴Can the promise of equality truly be realized when a vulnerable community is left behind? In a substantive decision, the Kerala High Court has firmly reinforced the rights of transgender individuals, mandating the enforcement of reservation in both education and employment. This pivotal ruling not only upholds the principles of social justice and equality but also sends a powerful message about the state's duty to protect the rights of its most marginalized citizens.

#Transgenderrights #Reservationineducation #Reservationinemployment

➡️The writ petitions were filed by transgender individuals seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Kerala Government to provide reservations in education and public employment, following the Supreme Court's declaration in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India. Despite various government measures since 2015, there was no concrete policy or action to ensure such reservations.

#NationalLegalServicesAuthorityCase #Transgenderpersons

➡️The primary legal issue before the Kerala High Court was whether the Government of Kerala's inaction in providing reservations to transgender persons, despite Supreme Court directives and constitutional obligations, violates the rights of transgender individuals under Part III of the Constitution.

#Affirmativeaction #Fundamentalrights #Socialjustice

➡️The petitioner's submission was

🔹The lack of reservations violates their fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and affirmative action as mandated by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment.

🔹There is persistent discrimination and exclusion faced by them (transgender individuals) in education and public employment.

➡️The Government's submission was

🔹They have undertaken various measures, including social welfare schemes for the transgender community.

🔹Framing reservation policies involve complex administrative considerations and cannot be resolved solely through judicial intervention.

#Legalrecognition

➡️The High Court observed that

🔹The Apex Court's directives in NALSA is binding and essential for ensuring the equality and dignity of transgender persons.

🔹The Supreme Court in NALSA had explicitly declared that transgender persons must be recognized as a "third gender" and categorized as socially and educationally backward for reservations.

🔹The Government's continued inaction, despite constitutional and judicial mandates, is a failure to uphold fundamental rights.

🔹The absence of government action was deemed a violation of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

➡️In a significant judgment the High Court directed the Kerala Government to formulate and implement reservation policies for transgender individuals in education and public employment & ensure compliance with the NALSA judgment and provide equal treatment to transgender persons through proactive affirmative action.

[reallyunluckyrunaway]

God forbid you're old and home bound, you're not rich and have no means of transportation. You have a hectic life and can't get a sitter. Welcome to Nazi Germany America, You did this.

[linktwinmaniac]

Is the moderate pro-life view really incoherent?

I write this open email to Matthew Scarfone as a response to his article If you’re pro-life, you might already be pro-choice.

Dear Prof. Scarfone,

I’m T́ristanaz Ĺaihnazrijaz, a maths student at the Distance University in Hagen with a great interest in philosophy, which stems in part from my delving into the groundwork of mathematics. I came upon your aforementioned article on The Conversation and found it to provide food for thought. Specifically, I believe to have found a flaw in your argument against the moderate pro-life position. First off, I’m a moderate but vehement pro-lifer myself, who acknowledges the fact that unborn human beings are obviously human beings and that therefore, aborting them for no very good reason is murder. I think such very good reasons exhaust themselves in the following list: rape, threat to the mother’s life, and danger to the mother’s health or that of the fetus (e.g. genetic defects of the latter). I am instinctively taken aback both by the extreme pro-life position and the extreme pro-choice view. Therefore, your article provided my instinct’s deeming with a noteworthy challenge.

You wrote that moderate pro-lifers base their view on three assumptions: 1. that a human fetus is (quite obviously by definition) a human and therefore has a right to the continuation of their life, 2. that this right trump (subjunctive) the mother’s right to bodily autonomy, 3. except in the case of rape. You rightly pointed out that points (2.) and (3.) contradict each other. Thence, you concluded that the moderate pro-life view be incoherent. But here lies your mistake; for moderate pro-lifers like myself don’t claim either (2.) or (3.). We do, of course, accept (1.) and draw attention to the fact that if someone refuses to acknowledge the humanity of an unborn baby because such acknowledgement would bear uncomfortable consequences for them, they are no different from an Ancient Roman who refuses to recognize the humanness of slaves out of fear that such recognition would make the Roman economy collapse.

The right to continuation of one’s physical life and the right to bodily autonomy are both ground rights (unlike the right to property, for example, which is more of a privilege, I believe) and therefore cannot be trumped by each other or anything else. Fundamental rights are untrumpable. Therefore, weighing them against each other, as is done in (2.), is a forbidden move, to borrow Chess parlance. Mr. Spock is wrong to claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In truth, each one’s ground rights are not outweighed by anything. For instance, nobody has the right to do experiments on you without your consent even if they’d reap huge benefits for the whole rest of humankind.

Consider the following hypothetical: A ruthless doctor abducts Bob and does experiments on him because Bob’s body has some unusual features that make him a perfect guinea pig. As a result of an experiment gone wrong, Bob loses both his kidneys. The doctor wants to not lose his experimentation subject, so he abducts Alice and transplants one of her kidneys into Bob’s body without her consent. But a dogged sleuth by the family name “Di” unmasks the villain. The police free Alice and Bob from the doctor’s grasp and put the culprit in jail. Alice now wants her kidney back. But Bob would die without her kidney. So, does she still have the right to get her kidney back?

Of course she does.

So does her right to bodily autonomy outweigh Bob’s right to continuation of his bodily life?

No.

Then why does Alice have the right to retrieve her kidney?

Because it was taken from her without her consent, thereby violating her utter right to bodily autonomy.

But that would take Bob’s life.

True, but is that Alice’s fault?

No.

Then why should she have to accept a violation to one of her ground rights because of someone else’s (the doctor’s) crime?

Right, she shouldn’t.

Exactly; nothing excuses violating a fundamental right, not even guarding another ground right. In particular, this applies to abortion. The rape victim is like Alice, the unborn baby like Bob, and the rapist like the doctor. If Alice gets her kidney back and Bob dies as a result, is it murder?

Yes.

And who’s the murderer?

Clearly the one responsible for Bob’s plight: the doctor.

And so it is in the case of aborting a rape fetus: It does constitute murder, and the murderer isn’t Alice, but rather the rapist. The fetus has no right to be carried to term by the raped woman for a similar reason that tests on non-human animals which endanger the latter’s life or health are probably wrong: Non-human animals’ right to life and health clearly doesn’t outweigh humans’, but it’s morally forbidden to violate their fundamental rights to save the humans’. Simply put: If a human has cancer, that’s their problem with their egoistic cells. What’s the poor mice’s fault?

None. But a case could be made that the mouse soul freely chose to incarnate in a mouse body, knowing that the latter would support only cognition not sophisticated enough to think much about right or wrong. Therefore, it have (subjunctive) forfeited the absoluteness of its right to life and health. So it be morally allowed to sacrifice the mouse’s life or health for good reasons, e.g. to save people who can think about right and wrong and have chosen to fight for the former.

Yeah, maybe, but animals as highly feelingful and thoughtful as coleoid cephalopods, primates, and corvids remain off-limits. For the same reason, burking is wrong. Of course, if any animal endangers an innocent human, it’s right to kill the animal to shield the human, because here, the animal tries to infringe on the humans’ right. The same is true of humans endangering innocent humans: You have the right to kill someone who tries to kill or seriously hurt you for no good reason. Anyway, just like it’s wrong to sacrifice one human’s life for the sake of humanity if that human refuses, so it’s wrong to sacrifice a raped woman’s right to bodily autonomy for the baby’s sake.

That explains why a woman has the right to kill her unborn rape baby. But why may she abort if her life or health is in danger?

For a very similar reason: Her absolute right to life and health must not be sacrificed against her will for anything else, including saving the life of her fetus.

Alright. But why may she abort a not yet too old (!) fetus if the latter suffers from genetic defects?

Because she isn’t forced to commit the baby to a life of misery. For the same reason, family members who have a good relationship with a patient on life support who can no longer clearly think can decide whether to continue life support or not.

That’s all nice and well, but it doesn’t explain why a mother does not have a right to kill her unborn baby under all circumstances. So, why doesn’t she?

Because by willingly having sex, she freely gives up part of her right to bodily autonomy to any potential babies resulting from the sex. You see, nobody can take your ground rights away … nobody but you, that is. You can relinquish your fundamental rights, and you can also forfeit them. A kidney giver freely relinquishes their utter right in one of their kidneys. And a serial killer forfeits their right to continuation of their life. Alice can rightfully demand her kidney back from Bob because it was robbed from her. However, if she freely gives her kidney to Bob, she obviously has no right to later change her mind and demand it back. A woman who’s gotten pregnant from consensual sex or through another action she took part in out of her own freewill is exactly like a kidney donor, and her unborn baby is exactly like the kidney recipient.

As we’ve seen, it is sometimes, but only sometimes, okay to let an unborn human being die, but the same is true of born and even grownup humans. In accordance with human self-worth, we haven’t treated unborn humans differently from born ones. Yes, a raped woman has the right to let her unborn baby die, but you likewise have the right to refuse to donate blood even if someone would die without receiving some of your blood. However, if the woman has had the chance to abort her rape baby for a long enough while but hasn’t made use of it, this also constitutes a relinquishment of her right to bodily autonomy of her own accord. For instance, if she had the chance to abort from the day of her rape up until, say, eight months later, but hasn’t, she has no right to change her mind that late and kill and eight-months-old unborn baby. Why? Because by freely choosing to not abort for eight (the number is just an example) months, which is more than enough time to make one’s mind up, she has given her right to bodily autonomy up as far as carrying the baby to term goes. By the way, it’s crystal clear that an e.g. eight-month-old unborn baby is a human being, who can feel stuff and move like a born baby; after all, some babies are born younger. Are these no humans, either? Or does sliding through a woman’s vagina magically turn a non-person into a person? On a funny note … if so, does a man’s tarse that had been in a woman’s sheath become a person once he pulls it out ���?

I believe to have thus laid bare the straw man argument in your article. Another important thing I have done is to point out a third rightful reason for abortion: genetic defects of the fetus. On the other hand, you may find one of the exceptions you mentioned conspicuously absent from my account: incest. Why is that? Because incest alone does not provide any grounds on which to kill a human being. The unborn baby has resulted from the sexual intercourse of, say, sister and brother. So what? As long the sex was consensual and the baby doesn’t suffer genetic illnesses due to the incest, there’s no reason to slay it.

Indeed, I strongly support the right of siblings to have romantic and sexual relationships with each other and have children together.

But doesn’t that lead to genetic defects?

Firstly, inbreeding does not create harmful alleles, but only raises the likelihood that recessive alleles, both good ones and bad ones, be expressed. It thereby raises the risk for the children to have harmful recessive traits, but also the opportunity for them to have helpful recessive traits. Yet even the former effect has its good side, though, as it cleanses the population of harmful recessive alleles through genetic purging: It exposes them to natural selection. Species like the fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus bear witness to the useful sides of sibcest (sibling incest).

But humans aren’t fish.

As a matter of fact, we are; J we evolved from fish and therefore are fish. Indeed, we’re rooted deeply in the fish family tree, deeper than sharks and rays, in fact. On a funny note: You can point out that mammals are fish whenever some smart aleck claims that whales aren’t fish, but mammals 😉.

Secondly, in today’s world, sibling couples can let their unborn embryos undergo genetic screening and abort the sick ones among them. Or rather, they could, were it not for the incest taboo or even incest prohibition, which prevents them from accessing said treatment lest they be shunned by society or thrown into jail. So it’s ironically not incest, but the incest taboo and prohibition, which are responsible for genetically ill children being born of incestuous unions.

Thirdly, the eugenic argument against incest is as unacceptable as any other eugenic argument. By its logic, the state should forbid any couple who have a higher risk of begetting ill children from having them.

Fourthly, the incest taboo and prohibition apply even to non-begetting sex on the one hand while on the other hand – please correct me if I be wrong – not forbidding a sister from conceiving from her brother through artificial insemination. Absolutely nobody is harmed in the least if a brother has a vasectomy before having sex with his sister, for example.

Anyway, incest poses no public health risk and no health risk to people who have nothing to do with the incestuous couple, as it causes no infectious diseases. By contrast, promiscuity and certain disgusting sexually motivated acts (be they opposite-sex or same-sex) do spread dangerous pathogens throughout society, such as HIV. Thereby, they also affect people not involved in any way in the sex, for example patients who receive blood from donors infected with HIV due to the latter’s promiscuous habits. So there is a case to be made for outlawing promiscuity and literally dirty pseudo-sex, since it endangers the health of third parties and society as a whole.

I believe to have thus thoroughly debunked the eugenic argument against sibcest.

As for other arguments against it, I can’t find any sound ones. If a brother rapes his sister? Well, that’s rape, and this is why it’s wrong. A woman raped by her brother is no more a victim of incest than a boy raped by a man is a victim of homosexuality or, indeed, a woman raped by a man is a victim of heterosexuality.

Sister and brother who make love with each other in complete consent and let their embryos undergo genetic screening harm no-one and are therefore fully innocent. Therefore, sibling incest in and of itself is neither wrong nor immoral nor unethical nor anything of the sort. I’m appalled and shocked by the fact that many supposedly enlightened jurisdictions, including Canada, most of the U.S., and much of Europe, still prohibit sibcest, in some case with extreme punishments worse than ones meant for serious crimes. And that in the Twenty-First Yearhundred!

I’m strongly against sibcestophobia and homophobia, but what truly disgusts me is the incoherence and hypocrisy inherent in the view that same-sex sex be okay whereas sibling sex be not. What disgusts me even more is the perversion (in the literal sense of “wrong-way-round-ness”) of the opinion that incest or homosexual intercourse be wrong whereas adultery should not be forbidden. Why? Because incest and same-sex sex in themselves are victimless whereas adultery has a victim: the cheated spouse. Adultery is a type of breaking one’s promise and ought therefore to be forbidden and punished. And it’s a dangerous type of breaking one’s promise at that, as the adulterer can infect their spouse with HIV and other nasty buggers. The cheater endangers their spouse’s health and life without the latter’s knowledge and accordingly ought to be punished severely. By contrast, little is wrong with an open marriage, for there, the spouses haven’t promised each other to have no romantic or sexual relations with others and accept the associated risks. Only if there be an infectious danger to public health should open relationships be outlawed. By “marriage”, I mean the state of two or more people being in a romantic and sexual relationship with each other which they mean to last. I don’t mean the IMHO hocus-pocus involving priests or registrars. Spouses don’t get married; they marry one another. Something akin to adultery in wrongness is plagiarism (not to be confused with refusing to bow to copyright or patent), which is the fraudulent misattribution of others’ intellectual achievements to oneself and thereby a form of lying. Why akin? Because both are instances of dishonesty, and dishonesty is one of the worst things, as already Immanuel Kant realized.

Speaking of marriage … just as sibling marriage is victimless and not immoral in any way, so are same-sex marriage and marriage between more than two people. Hence, one shouldn’t discriminate against marriages based on relatedness, gender, or number.

Coming back to our topic: It seems that our gut feeling has been right after all in telling us that killing an unborn human for no good reason is murder, but that forcing a woman to carry a rape child to term is an equally egregious rights violation. Well, at least my gut feeling has always told me that, and I venture to say my gut is quite healthy 😉. You have shown that some people’s rational justification for their right instinctive judgment is wrong, though.

So … am I right that you have made a straw man argument against the moderate pro-life view? Have I shown that the moderate pro-life position is coherent and, indeed, right after all?

Sincerely yours,

T́ristanaz Ĺaihnazrijaz, ðe Liŋk Twin Maniac (L™)

P.S.: I’m surprised it’s the left which usually advocates abortion rights and the right which speaks for baby rights. Why? Because normally, it’s the left-winger who speaks for equality and the rights of everyone whereas the right-winger is more prone to supremacism and, at the extremist fringe, to endorsing dehumanization. The left acknowledges that race, ethnicity, gender, culture, religion, sexual orientation, wealth and so on are no valid grounds on which to discriminate against people. So why age (bornness vs. unbornness)?

I vehemently defend living being rights. I acknowledge that all living beings, from bacteria and archaea through plants and non-human animals to humans, transhumans, superhuman AGIs, and superhuman aliens, have inviolable dignity which can be damaged or forfeited only by their own freewilled choices. I admit that by choosing a primitive body not able to support the intelligence needed for ethics, lower life forms have probably forfeited some of their ground rights. I’ve always, since long before I went to school, spoken for the rights of animals and even plants (I always opposed cutting trees down). I’m aware that damaging anything good or beautiful, even if it’s not alive, e.g. a fair jewel, for no good reason is wrong. I realize that bullfighting, butchering whales for fun, pure sports hunting, and all other forms of blood sport are among the most perverse activities imaginable. I’m appalled by such monstrous crimes as eating live octopuses, who are highly feelingful and smart beings, and cutting fins off living sharks. I’m aware of the realness of manmade global warming and know that fighting it is one of the weightiest things we have to do. I’m an enthusiastic pro-vaxxer but grudgingly admit that everyone has the right to refuse to get vaccinated based on their right to bodily autonomy. In fact, I believe the whole population ought to be regularly vaccinated against the deadliest non-prionic infectious disease I’m aware of: rabies. I’m for women’s rights, children’s rights (born and unborn alike), sibcest rights, polygamy rights, and LGBTIAQ+ rights. I’m against acephobia, sibcestophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. I’m spellbound by Darwinian evolution (evolution by random variation and natural selection) and reject creationism and theistic evolution. I’m aware of the soul and reject physicalism. I believe that humankind is by far the most advanced species currently on Earth, but only by chance, and that species far more sophisticated are possible. I’ve shown that copyright, patent, and other kinds of CoPaKIP (copyright-or-patent-kind intellectual property) violate the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of science and art, and free unfolding of one’s personality and that they’re based on ethical and metaphysical errors. A whole chapter of my mythical saga True Twin Telepaths Go Trick-or-Treating outlines some of my arguments, and I have an upcoming book about the matter going into far more detail. I believe in the universal right to free healthcare and free education (including higher). I’m currently mostly sympathetic to moderate socialism and critical of rampant capitalism, though I recognize the worth of competition and that capitalism has its good sides, such as Elon Musk’s space program. (As for CoPaKIP, it violates both capitalist and socialist principles, as I show in the aforesaid myth.) I’m against imperialism, oppression, and supremacism and for freedom, multiculturalism, and openness. I’m against drugs of almost all sorts (coffee is the only exception I’m thinking of right now), including nicotine and alcohol, though I’m more strongly against marihuana and far more strongly against the harder drugs. I’m also against gambling. I’m strongly against sending the seeds of life (directed panspermia) to objects (e.g. planets and star-forming clouds) that can or will be able to bring forth life of their own, as that would prevent new, original life from arising by itself. Seeding an uninhabited but habitable world or a nebula that’s likely to become one is like putting a foreign embryo into a woman’s womb before she has a chance to beget her own. One of the things most important to me is saving species, including alligator gars, coelacanths, and Venus flytraps, from extinction, protecting the environment, and renaturation.

And last and perhaps greatest … I agree with Stephen Hawking that we must NOT send signals willy-nilly into space without knowing what creeps and crawls around out there. 😰

So I find myself in the rather awkward position of being broadly allied on the issue of abortion with those most of whose other views I oppose. In fact, I don’t get the logic behind the definitions of leftwing and rightwing. As said, I’d classify pro-life as leftist and pro-choice as rightist. Likewise, the right rightfully leans away from living on debt. Then why does it embrace making the worst debt of all: over-exploiting the planet? Often, I just memorize which positions are ascribed to which of the two wings. But it matters little, for as they look in part like jumbled assortments of views to me, I don’t count myself among either.

P.P.S.: Please address me with the vocative (calling case), “Tristan” or “Mr. Laihnazrii”, rather than the nominative (who-case), “Tristanaz” or “Mr. Laihnazrijaz”. Please say or write e.g. “Tristanaz is moderately pro-life” (nominative), “Tristan, how are you?” (vocative), “She heard Tristanan” (accusative, whon-case), “Can I help Tristanai?” (dative, whom-case), “Tristanis/Tristanas arguments are sound” (genitive/possessive, whose-case), and “You can hone your philosophizing skills with Tristanoo” (instrumental, tool case, with-whom-case).

[dosesofcommonsense]

[dunilefra]

Admirable Articles of Malta's Constitution

8. Promotion of culture, etc

The State shall promote the development of culture and scientific and technical research.

9. Safeguarding of landscape and historical and artistic patrimony

The State shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the Nation.

10. Compulsory and free primary education

Primary education shall be compulsory and in State schools shall be free of charge.

13. Hours of work

The maximum number of hours of work per day shall be fixed by law.

The worker is entitled to a weekly day of rest and to annual holidays with pay; he cannot renounce this right.

17. Social assistance and insurance

Every citizen incapable of work and unprovided with the resources necessary for subsistence is entitled to maintenance and social assistance.

Workers are entitled to reasonable insurance on a contributory basis for their requirements in case of accident, illness, disability, old-age and involuntary unemployment.

Disabled persons and persons incapable of work are entitled to education and vocational training.

34. Protection from arbitrary arrest or detention (Part of it)

No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save as may be authorised by law in the following cases, that is to say -

for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or before the House of Representatives in execution of the order of that House;

in the case of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of his education or welfare;

for the purpose of preventing the spread of an infectious or contagious disease;

Any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed at the time of his arrest or detention, in a language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention:  Provided that if an interpreter is necessary and is not readily available or if it is otherwise impracticable to comply with the provisions of this sub-article at the time of the person’s arrest or detention, such provisions shall be complied with as soon as practicable.

Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained by any other person shall be entitled to compensation therefor from that person.

35. Protection from forced labour

No person shall be required to perform forced labour.

For the purposes of this article, the expression "forced labour" does not include -

any labour required in consequence of the sentence or order of a court;

labour required of any person while he is lawfully detained by sentence or order of a court that, though not required in consequence of such sentence or order, is reasonably necessary in the interests of hygiene or for the maintenance of the place at which he is detained or, if he is detained for the purpose of his care, treatment, education or welfare, is reasonably required for that purpose;

any labour required of a member of a disciplined force in pursuance of his duties as such or, in the case of a person who has conscientious objections to service as a member of a naval, military or air force, any labour that that person is required by law to perform in place of such service;

any labour required during a period of public emergency or in the event of any other emergency or calamity that threatens the life or well-being of the community.

37. Protection from deprivation of property without compensation (Part of it)

No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where provision is made by a law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition -

for the payment of adequate compensation;

securing to any person claiming such compensation a right of access to an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law for the purpose of determining his interest in or right over the property and the amount of any compensation to which he may be entitled, and for the purpose of obtaining payment of that compensation; and

securing to any party to proceedings in that court or tribunal relating to such a claim a right of appeal from its determination to the Court of Appeal in Malta:

Provided that in special cases Parliament may, if it deems it appropriate so to act in the national interest, by law establish the criteria which are to be followed, including the factors and other circumstances to be taken into account, in the determination of the compensation payable in respect of property compulsorily taken possession of or acquired; and in any such case the compensation shall be determined and shall be payable accordingly.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as affecting the making or operation of any law so far as it provides for the taking of possession or acquisition of property -

in satisfaction of any tax, rate or due;

by way of penalty for, or as a consequence of, breach of the law, whether under civil process or after conviction of a criminal offence;

by way of the taking of a sample for the purposes of any law;

where the property consists of an animal upon its being found trespassing or straying;

as an incident of a lease, tenancy, licence, privilege or hypothec, mortgage, charge, bill of sale, pledge or other contract;

by way of the vesting or administration of property on behalf and for the benefit of the person entitled to the beneficial interest therein, trust property, enemy property or the property of persons adjudged bankrupt or otherwise declared bankrupt or insolvent, persons of unsound mind, deceased persons, or bodies corporate or unincorporate in the course of being wound up or liquidated;

in the execution of judgments or orders of courts;

by reason of its being in a dangerous state or injurious to the health of human beings, animals or plants;

in consequence of any law with respect to the limitation of actions, acquisitive prescription, derelict land, treasure trove, mortmain or the rights of succession competent to the Government of Malta; or

for so long only as may be necessary for the purposes of any examination, investigation, trial or inquiry or, in the case of land, the carrying out thereon -

of work of soil conservation or the conservation of other natural resources of any description or of war damage reconstruction; or

of agricultural development or improvement which the owner or occupier of the land has been required and has without reasonable and lawful excuse refused or failed to carry out.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as affecting the making or operation of any law so far as it provides for vesting in the Government of Malta the ownership of any underground minerals, water or antiquities.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as affecting the making or operation of any law for the compulsory taking of possession in the public interest of any property, or the compulsory acquisition in the public interest of any interest in or right over property, where that property, interest or right is held by a body corporate which is established for public purposes by any law and in which no monies have been invested other than monies provided by any legislature in Malta.

97. Tenure of office of judges

Subject to the provisions of this article, a judge of the Superior Courts shall vacate his office when he attains the age of sixty-five years.

A judge of the Superior Courts shall not be removed from his office except by the President upon an address by the House of Representatives supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members thereof and praying for such removal on the ground of proved inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or proved misbehaviour.

by Dunilefra, working for State Policy

[lifeunchartedjourney]

"Resilience Amidst Turmoil: Upholding Justice and Safety in Gaza and Palestine"

In the midst of the current events in Gaza and Palestine, the resilience of the Palestinian people stands as a testament to their enduring spirit. The international community must prioritize efforts to bring about a just and lasting resolution.

[studylaws]

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution: Safeguarding the Rights of Individuals

Introduction Article 20 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that plays a significant role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals. It embodies the principles of justice and fairness by ensuring protection against certain actions that may infringe upon the personal liberty of citizens. This article provides safeguards that are vital for upholding the principles of a…

[indizombie]

Forced conversion is only a myth. In the disguise for preventing forced conversion, this law (Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2021) is actually infringing the fundamental rights of the people. It violates the right to privacy and the right to personal liberty. A person who wants to convert has to submit a lot of personal details to the Government which is a violation of his privacy. It also curtails the freedom of a woman to marry a person of their choice irrespective of religion.

Dr Peter Machado, the Archbishop of Bangalore

[lilycelebi-side-blog]

We don't usually get this personal on Tumblr dot com. This'll be once in a blue moon:

We are technically disabled (less disabled than the people around us at home, but nonetheless, technically disabled, at one point diagnosed and receiving resources and accommodations from our school).

We are neurodivergent and are a DID system.

We caretake for a physically disabled person who could not go without us at the moment, along with her husband on and off.

We are a trans guy, approved for one surgery, seeking one other in the future.

We are the "bureaucrats" they want to target and replace with their own people, threatening our job, which is our only way out of a still-abusive home (albeit less so than in the past -- more just... lingering emotional pain and daily yelling/jabs in the background, nothing serious). This job is our dream job in social climate, flexibility, remote/work-at-home status, and literally everything else. It is also our first real career. It means so much to us....

We are a bunch of things they do not want to exist -- and we are lucky there aren't more. We could be part of many other groups of people that hold these same fears, or much, much worse ones. They have us and many, many others on their agenda for elimination.

Let me tell you, if they take our rights, job, and resources away, we will fight like hell. It's the only choice left. We especially need to exercise the privileges we've been extended.

What that fight will entail, we do not know yet. What we do know is that we exist now, and we must continue to exist. Existing in itself is fighting back. Existing in itself is rebellion against everything they want to target. It is the first step in any level of resistance.

We did everything right, everything that was laid in front of us that we were told from birth to do -- we didn't fail or make a single mistake, no matter how much pain and adversity it took. We were perfectly obedient and met gargantuan, superhuman demands and expectations. This life has been an extremely painful but worthwhile journey of growth that we are grateful to have been given the opportunity to have lived, despite -- and, controversially, including -- all abuses endured.

They do NOT get to target us, persecute us, or steal the resources we worked extremely hard for -- we WILL live. We MUST live.

Please, people, live! We need to band together and have each other's backs. We need to unite, especially in spirit. It is the first step to whatever comes down the line.

We understand your feelings of apprehension, tension, hopelessness, helplessness, loneliness, disappointment, anger, frustration, mortification, and many more. Channel these high levels of energy toward living -- living stubbornly, vehemently, in the corner of their eye.

We need to defend the right to exist, the right to freely express ourselves (especially the outcasts, weirdos, and freaks!), the right to celebrate our differences and diversity, the right to have community solidarity, and the right to claim resources we have rightfully earned, and we can first do that by continuing to exist.

Thank you, Salem, for the words of encouragement.

We will, for once, be courageous and make a real post/reblog. We very, very much fear posting opinions too openly on the internet, but now is the time. It is the least we can do. This is what pride is about.

I said this months ago but I'll say it again: if you're transgender you HAVE TO LIVE

[humanrightsday]

UN Human Rights Appeal 2025. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

The UN Human Rights Appeal 2025 is an appeal for support to the UN human rights programme covering our planned activities and needs for 2025.

Introduction                 

Video  

Opening remarks                      

Q&A    

Conclusion

Watch the UN Human Rights Appeal 2025!

[rightnewshindi]

मदरसों में बच्चों को नहीं मिल रही उचित शिक्षा, बच्चों के मौलिक अधिकारों का हो रहा उल्लंघन; एनसीपीसीआर

Delhi News: राष्ट्रीय बाल अधिकार संरक्ष�� आयोग (एनसीपीसीआर) ने कहा है कि मदरसों में बच्चों को उचित तरीके से शिक्षा नहीं मिल रही है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट में बुधवार को लिखित दलीलें देते हुए एनसीपीसीआर ने कहा कि मदरसे बुनियादी आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने में विफल होकर बच्चों के अच्छी शिक्षा के मौलिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन कर रहे हैं। आयोग का कहना है कि मदरसों में बच्चों को दी जाने वाली शिक्षा व्यापक नहीं है। इसलिए…

[seemabhatnagar]

Madras High Court Orders Partial Defreezing of Account Amid Cryptocurrency Investigation

Freezing an account indefinitely without informing the account holder violates his fundamental rights. Freezing orders should be specific to the amount under investigation and not disrupt the entire financial life of individual.

Background

The petitioner, Mohammed Saifullah's, bank account, was frozen by HDFC Bank based on the instructions from the Cyber Crime Bureau of Telangana, received via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

The account was frozen due to an ongoing investigation into a cybercrime case related to cryptocurrency, in which an amount of Rs. 2,48,835 is suspected to be linked to the crime.

The total balance in the petitioner’s account was Rs. 9,69,580, and he had not been informed for over a year as to why the account was frozen or when it would be unfrozen.

The petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to defreeze his account and release of his balance.

Mohd. Saifullah v. Reserve Bank Of India and 5 others

WP 25631/2024

Before the High Court of Madras

Heard by Hon'ble Dr. Justice G Jayachandran J

Legal Issue

Whether the authorities can freeze a bank account indefinitely without informing the account holder or quantifying the suspected amount, thereby affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade and business) and Article 21 (right to livelihood) of the Constitution of India.

Argument of the Parties

Petitioner's Argument

The freezing of his account was without proper communication or justification from the authorities, and without a defined time frame, violating his fundamental rights.

Freezing of his account has seriously impacted his business and financial well-being.

Respondent's Argument

Freezing of the account was based on the ongoing investigation into cybercrime, specifically involving suspected cryptocurrency transactions.

They were acting on instructions from the Cyber Crime Bureau of Telangana and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

Court's Observation

While the authorities have the statutory power to freeze bank accounts during investigations, it is essential to ensure that such powers are not exercised arbitrarily.

Freezing the entire account without specifying the amount under suspicion and failing to communicate the reasons to the account holder is not acceptable.

Courts order

HDFC Bank, was ordered to defreeze the petitioner's account, allowing him to operate it with the condition that a lien of ₹2,50,000 is kept on the account. The petitioner must ensure that a minimum balance of ₹2,50,000 is maintained in the account at all times, pending the investigation.

Seema Bhatnagar

[rouletteweekend]

The Fear and Sadness of the 2024 Election: A Personal Reflection

With the election just a few months away, I’m sure you’ve realized that almost every other post you see on your social media feeds is some sort of meme by one side or the other spewing vitriol and hate to the other side. I’m pretty sure this election is as ugly as one has ever been. And quite frankly, it’s starting to hurt my heart. It’s no secret that I am way left leaning. And if you looked at…

[saga-of-poems]

Equality's Delusion

Equal in freedom, a noble decree, Yet folly in thinking, so it would seem. For equal in all, a fallacy we see, A democratic dream, a hopeful scheme.

We're equal in rights, a fundamental claim, But talents and wit, a varied array. To equate every soul, a foolish game, Ignoring the depths where differences lay.

So let's hail the free, with a joyous cheer, But temper the notion, with wisdom's light. For equality's perfect, a concept unclear, A mirage of minds on a hopeful night.

[lloydlawcollege]

Must-Know Rights and Laws for Every Indian Citizen

In this blog, we explore the fundamental rights and important laws that every Indian citizen should be aware of. These rights and laws empowers you and ensures you can stand up for yourself and others when necessary. Discover key legal protections and obligations that impact your life.