#Fundamental Rights | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dunilefra · 3 months ago

Text

Admirable Articles of Philippines's Constitution

ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES (Part of it)

Sec 4

The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.

Sec 6

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Sec 9

The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.

Sec 15

The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

Sec 26

The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

ARTICLE III. BILL OF RIGHTS (Part of it)

Sec 3

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Sec 5

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Sec 21

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

ARTICLE V. SUFFRAGE (Part of it)

Sec 1

Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

ARTICLE VI. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (Part of it)

Sec 4

The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirteenth day of June next following their election.

No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Sec 7

The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.

No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

Sec 10

The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.

Sec 31

No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (Part of it)

Sec 1

The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

Sec 4

The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Sec 13

The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

ARTICLE XII. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY (Part of it)

Sec 1

The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

Sec 17

In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

Sec 18

The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.

Sec 19

The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.

ARTICLE XIII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Part of it)

Sec 12

The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and undertake appropriate health manpower development and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems.

ARTICLE XVI. GENERAL PROVISIONS (Part of it)

Sec 5

Professionalism in the armed forces and adequate remuneration and benefits of its members shall be a prime concern of the State. The armed forces shall be insulated from partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote.

by Dunilefra, working for Fundamental Rights

#Philippines #Dunilefra #Politics #Political Reform #World Politics #World Order #Fundamental Rights #Human Rights #Economy #Religion #State Policy #Political Analysis #Constitution #Constitutional Law #Law #Tawhidur Rahman Dear #Dear

2 notes · View notes

reallyunluckyrunaway · 4 months ago

Text

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.

2 notes · View notes

linktwinmaniac · 11 months ago

Text

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).

#pro life #pro choice #abortion #human rights #reproductive rights #reproductive freedom #reproductive justice #reproductive health #women's rights #fetus rights #baby rights #ground rights #fundamental rights #animal testing #dignity #incest rights #sibcest rights #sibling marriage #sibcestophobia

2 notes · View notes

lifeunchartedjourney · 1 year ago

Text

"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.

#palestinians #gazacrisis #justice for palestine #safetyfirst #EndTheConflict #fundamental rights #global solidarity #peacefulresolution #support palestine

2 notes · View notes

studylaws · 2 years ago

Text

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…

View On WordPress

#Article 20 of Indian Constitution #Constitution of India #Constitution Studies #Constitutional Insights #Fundamental Rights #Indian Constitution Explained #Indian Law #Indian Legal System #Legal Education #Legal Rights

2 notes · View notes

indizombie · 2 years ago

Quote

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

#Peter Machado #Bangalore #Karnataka #India #Forced conversion #Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act 2021 #fundamental rights #right to privacy #right to personal liberty

4 notes · View notes

whitelotusherald · 3 days ago

Text

I don't want this series of protests to end but they will eventually

It's always been like that in Hungary

We're not like the Serbs who are badass and been protesting for months against their fucked up regime

#hungary #protest #budapest pride #lgbtq rights #fundamental rights

1 note · View note

affairsmastery · 1 month ago

Text

President’s Rule has been invoked in Manipur under Article 356 following the Chief Minister’s resignation due to escalating Meitei-Kuki ethnic violence since May 2023. This move allows the Centre to assume control, with the state legislature suspended and governance administered through the Governor.

Parliament must approve the Proclamation within two months, with extensions possible under specific conditions. Article 356 ensures constitutional governance during crises, safeguarding states from internal disturbances while preserving citizens' Fundamental Rights.

0 notes

dunilefra · 1 year ago

Text

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

#Malta #Dunilefra #Politics #Political Reform #World Politics #World Order #Fundamental Rights #Human Rights #Economy #Religion #State Policy #Political Analysis #Constitution #Constitutional Law

2 notes · View notes