Human Rights Convention

[neonlyte]

With so many people here with opinions on what constitutes Human Rights or a Constitution, we ought have a crack at writing our own... seriously.

I propose we take elements one at a time working through them with clear logic (which actually means no rancor or dogmatism) until wording is agreed and posted on this first post as a Declaration.

I'm betting we cannot even agree on the little ones, like Religion... if you want to add something to the list, post it and I'll add it here.

The maximum length of any Clause is 100 words.
Religion is the first Topic for discussion, I've red-flagged topics people raise objection to.
Who wants to go first?

Religion: No government nor its agencies either individually, or by treaty between governments or by any other means shall establish, impose, endorse or support either financially or otherwise any religion dogma belief or institution, neither shall they penalise oppress or tax any person or religious institution differentially from other persons or institutions.
Equality:
Health:
Democracy:
Self Defense:
Privacy:
Education:
Freedom of Expression:
National Defense:
Abortion:
Children's Rights:
Animal Rights: Disputed for inclusion
Right to Own Property: Disputed for inclusion

 

[Guest]

Can I sit on your lap first?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Animal Rights" is a "stolen concept" with no meaning. Rights is an abstract concept related to a real thing, which is humans needing to live together in peace and to our mutual benefit. It becomes a "floating abstraction" and "stolen concept" when it's applied to creatures.

An ethic of humaneness is the correct way to think about this issue; "rights" just obscures and causes confusion. (Does a gazelle have a "right" to not be eaten by a lion? Does a lion have a "right" to eat a gazelle?)

~~~~

For your project, first you need to define "rights." I've started: It's an abstract concept. It's not something concrete that has independent existance in the universe.

We use the concept because it is useful for the purpose I cited: Helping humans live together in peace and to our mutual benefit.

With that context established I'll add a human right left off your list: the right to own property. ("Property" an abstraction you say? Duh - the whole thing is an abstraction. Doesn't mean it lacks value.)

 

[neonlyte]

Can I sit on your lap first?

I wasn't thinking of banning it

Roxy: I'm going to stay out of the argument and try to moderate

I'll add 'Right to Own Property" and red-flag Animal Rights as disputed.

 

[Carnevil9]

Here ya go......Carney


Religion: You are free to practice whatever religion you want, but have no guarantee that anyone else will take you seriously.

Equality: You are not equal. Everyone is different, deal with it. You will all have equal opportunites to excel, but have no guarantee of equal success.

Health: The free market will provide. Other than that, you are on your own. If you want insurance or medical care, buy it.

Democracy: You can vote if you have a stake in society, such as by owning land or a profitable business. If you add nothing of value to society, your opinion about leaders and issues is not wanted.

Self Defense: We might have a police force, but basically you are on your own, so packing heat is recommended.

Privacy: Draw the blinds if you want privacy. There is no guarantees that you won't be spied upon, and a document that says you won't be doesn't make it magically come true so let's not kid ourselves.

Education: Will be supplied by the free marketplace. If you want it, buy it. If you don't, that's fine, but plan on not voting. Or eating.

Freedom of Expression: Speak, write, put a crucifix in a beaker of urine, we don't give a fuck. Just don't ask the rest of us to pay for it.

National Defense: Unnecessary. Since we won't have a central government controlling people's lives, there is really no nation to attack, or to defend.

Abortion: Supplied by the free market. Don't ask the rest of us to pay for it.

Children's Rights: No such thing.

Animal Rights: No such thing.

 

[Equinoxe]

(Does a gazelle have a "right" to not be eaten by a lion? Does a lion have a "right" to eat a gazelle?)

Does a human?

Children's Rights: No such thing.

Do you mean that children have no rights or that children have no rights which differ from general rights?

 

[oggbashan]

European Convention on Human Rights

This is the full original text. It has been adapted and changed when adopted as European Law.

Og

European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (1953)



The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,
Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 th December 1948;
Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realization of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;
Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration;
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
The High Contracting parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
Section I
ARTICLE 2
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defense of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
ARTICLE 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 4
1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labor.
3. For the purpose of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labor shall not include:
a. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention; ~
b. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognized, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
c. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
d. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
ARTICLE 5
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law
a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
b. the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfillment of any obligation prescribed by law;
c. the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offense or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offense or fleeing after having done so;
d. the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
e. the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholic or drug addicts or vagrants;
f. the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph I (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
ARTICLE 6
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly, but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offense has the following minimum rights:
a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense;
c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
ARTICLE 7
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed.
2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
ARTICLE 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
ARTICLE 9
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
ARTICLE 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
ARTICLE 11
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
ARTICLE 12
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
ARTICLE 13
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
ARTICLE 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
ARTICLE 15
1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
2. No derogation from Article 2, except in the respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.
ARTICLE 16
Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restriction on the political activity of aliens.
ARTICLE 17
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.
ARTICLE 18
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
Section II
ARTICLE 19
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the present Convention, there shall be set up:
1. A European Commission of Human Rights hereinafter referred to as "the Commission";
2. A European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as "the Court."
Section III
ARTICLE 20
The Commission shall consist of a number of members equal to that of the High Contracting Parties. No two members of the Commission may be nationals of the same State.
ARTICLE 21
1. The members of the Commission shall be elected by the Committee of Ministers by an absolute majority of votes, from a list of names drawn up by the Bureau of the Consultative Assembly; each group of the Representatives of the High Contracting Parties in the Consultative Assembly shall put forward three candidates, of whom two at least shall be its nationals.
2. As far as applicable, the same procedure shall be followed to complete the Commission in the event of other States subsequently becoming Parties to this Convention, and in filling casual vacancies....
ARTICLE 25
1. The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe from any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been lodged has declared that it recognizes the competence of the Commission to receive such petitions. Those of the High Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.
2. Such declarations may be made for a specific period.
3. The declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe who shall transmit copies thereof to the High Contracting Parties and publish them.
4. The Commission shall only exercise the powers provided for in this Article when at least six High Contracting Parties are bound by declarations made in accordance with the preceding paragraphs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[neonlyte]

I knew you guys couldn't hack it

Buckets of opinion, oodles of conviction

Ok: Religion

Any individual has the right to practice or preach any religion providing they do not disturb or impose upon the rights of others.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I worked for government for many years and am cynical about rights because the government violates rights whenever it pleases a judge to do so.

The only rights you truly have are the right to get old and the right to shit.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is the full original text. It has been adapted and changed when adopted as European Law.

Og

I'm pleased (and a bit surprised) to see they didn't lard it down with a bunch of so-called "positive rights," which of course is "merely another name for power or wealth." (Hayek) I suppose the object lesson of half a continent under brutal communist dictatorship with "positive rights" as its putative justification was a salient one at the time (1953).

However, the document could only have been written by bureacrats. It uses 2,416 turgid words that no normal human will ever read to do what the American Founders accomplished in 480 clear, simple, elegant words. It gives the appearance of being more concerned about the qualifications on the rights than the rights itself. For all that, it still gets the job done.

 

[Pure]

good posting, neon

it's an excellent document. rather superior to the US BR in many respects. rox says,

gives the appearance of being more concerned about the qualifications on the rights than the rights itself

the qualifications are necessary, and reflected, for instance in the Canadian Charter of Rights. the US BR, in failing to mention standard qualifications leaves the door open to Court and Executive abuses; iow, the US courts have had to evolve and work out some obvious qualifications of free speech, e.g. related to national security. Even obvious qualifications, e.g. re libel, are missing in the US BR, so judges in the SC are forced to say [in effect] "well, according to tradition, of course, libel is not covered as free speech"; a murky argument

As to religion:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think it's generally good, but a person's right NOT to have a religion, or NOT to profess a belief, say, in god, could be clearer.

The point about "manifesting", i.e. practicing and making overt, is a good one. Expansion of wording improves the US BR's mention of "exercise" of religion, a narrower concept.

The phrase "or [public] morals", used as a basis for restricting religious practice, is a clunker and a rat in the kitchen. For instance a law declaring "Everyone must attend a church, synagogue or mosque or temple of his or her choice, or face jail" could easily be defended as conducive to "public morals." To take a further example: suppose a church was held to be promoting "fornication", esp. among teens. "Public morals" could be used to suppress its teaching and proselytizing.

 

[oggbashan]

...As to religion:


The point about "manifesting", i.e. practicing and making overt, is a good one. Expansion of wording improves the US BR's mention of "exercise" of religion, a narrower concept.

The phrase "or [public] morals", is a clunker and a rat in the kitchen. For instance a law declaring "Everyone must attend a church, synagogue or mosque or temple of his or her choice, or face jail" could easily be defended as conducive to "public morals." Supposing, for example a church was held to be promoting "fornication", esp. among teens. "Public morals" could be used to suppress its teaching and proselytizing.

Religions are not free to advocate practices that are against other laws. Radical preachers have been banned from the UK and/or arrested for calling for war against unbelievers. "Blasphemy" is still technically an offence by English Law and some of the wilder Muslim imams have been suggesting that it should be applied to their religion too despite the law effectively being dead by non-use by the Church of England for generations.

Some US "religions" have been banned in the UK. Scientology is close to the limit of what is allowed. Religions and Ministers do not have "rights" in the UK. IF they are a charity, and the laws about what can and cannot be a charity are being tightened, they could have a few tax advantages - but that is all.

The Church of England, currently meeting at the Lambeth Conference, already has some difficulties with its stance on the civil law about equal rights for men and women and for gays. Religious bodies are exempt from complying with laws about equality. Clubs and societies are not and some have had to change centuries of tradition to allow women as members.

There are some real anomalies. The Queen as Head of the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, are excommunicate by the rules of the Catholic Church, yet they meet The Pope. All Christians are "unbelievers" by Muslim standards and are therefore to be treated differently by Muslims. However the reality is similar to a club - if you are a member you have certain rights and privileges. If you aren't a member you are treated as a non-member. That's all that "excommunicated" and "unbeliever" means however hard some idiots try to interpret it as "lesser breeds without the law".

Og

 

[Pure]

note to ogg

Religions are not free to advocate practices that are against other laws.


you fail to note that the Convention goes beyond this obvious limitation. in particular, as i've argued, corruption of public *morals*--e.g encouragement say, of fornication or adultery; neither of which is illegal-- is given as a basis for restricting the freedom to 'manifest', e.g., practice, one's religion.

to use ogg's example of blasphemy, the Convention is murky. PROBABLY it allows laws against blasphemy. if NOT, it should have said so, i.e. one's rights to his or her religion do NOT include a right to have the government penalize those questioning or disrespecting its gods, dogmas or doctrines, provided that other laws are not broken.

 

[oggbashan]

Update on Blasphemy

The English law on Blasphemy (which could only be against the beliefs of the Church of England) was abolished on 8 July 2008.

There is still technically a Scottish Law against Blasphemy but it hasn't been used since 1843.

Og

 

[Pure]

ogg,
do you agree, with respect to the posted excerpts, that the Convention would likely NOT preclude laws against blasphemy?

 

[gauchecritic]

the rights of privacy and free expression cover religion. I can't see any need to entertain religion as a right.

I'd imagine all religions (barring perhaps Buddhism) contain a de-facto element of proselytism which are in conflict with privacy and possibly free expression (ie other religions) So just leave religion out.

Property rights? Yeah.

 

[oggbashan]

ogg,
do you agree, with respect to the posted excerpts, that the Convention would likely NOT preclude laws against blasphemy?

Yes. However such a law might conflict with an individual's rights and could be a subject of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The various UK laws all preceded the adoption of the Convention.

Og

 

[Pure]

Full text

of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights, in its present form, is at

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z17euroco.html

the first 18 articles are the basic rights (not much different from what's posted above). much of the rest, the additions, are just enforcement machinery.

 

[Liar]

However, the document could only have been written by bureacrats. It uses 2,416 turgid words that no normal human will ever read to do what the American Founders accomplished in 480 clear, simple, elegant words.

Curious... what document are you referring to? The Constitution is a helluva lot longer and the Bill of Rights counts to over 800 words as far as I can tell.

That being said, "lawyer speak" exists for a reason. And no, the reason is not to exclude people like me who get a migraine from reading it.

Sure, it's not poetic. But on the other hand it's very specific. All those qualifiers are there to make sure that people who start yapping about "the spirit" of the thing, instead of, well, the thing, can be told to shut the fuck up. If it's not there, in black and white, it's not there.

At least that's the idea. If the "lawyer speak" and the qualifiers do their job in the EU Convention or not, I have no idea. I started reading it, and the migraine kicked in.

 

[cantdog]

What the hell, I'll chime in.

I don't think deciding what's a "human right" is all that abstract. Every one of them, people were willing to go to the line for. Repeatedly, in the face of deadly force, usually. If you live in a society which outlaws labor unions, and even sends people to kill organizers and union members, people still persist. That's what makes the right to organize a human right. If your society claims the right to break into your house, anyone's house, and drag you off to be tortured to death, people rebel. They will continue to rebel until you back the hell off. That's what makes being secure in your house from unreasonable intrusions a human right.

So. Religion. I agree with gauche, actually. But for sure, people outface death for the right to profess and manifest their religions. You can legislate your limits all you like, but if the religious do not see the reasonableness of your limits to free religion, they will give you and your society no peace, even if you send men out to kill them. Same for the right to hold no religion. Just try it. People will absolutely not put up with this right being legislated away.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Penis Envy AV

What the hell, I'll chime in.

I don't think deciding what's a "human right" is all that abstract. Every one of them, people were willing to go to the line for. Repeatedly, in the face of deadly force, usually. If you live in a society which outlaws labor unions, and even sends people to kill organizers and union members, people still persist. That's what makes the right to organize a human right. If your society claims the right to break into your house, anyone's house, and drag you off to be tortured to death, people rebel. They will continue to rebel until you back the hell off. That's what makes being secure in your house from unreasonable intrusions a human right.

So. Religion. I agree with gauche, actually. But for sure, people outface death for the right to profess and manifest their religions. You can legislate your limits all you like, but if the religious do not see the reasonableness of your limits to free religion, they will give you and your society no peace, even if you send men out to kill them. Same for the right to hold no religion. Just try it. People will absolutely not put up with this right being legislated away.

Along with my conservative friends (it's true, I swear!), I see these "rights" as prohibitions against government action, NOT interferring with or having any relevance to the beliefs and legal(otherwise) actions of individuals....

So.... starting with Religion.... this is ALL to do with the Government not establishing or promoting any religion.... And THAT includes governmental bodies using taxpayer money to establish or promote religous beliefs. To my mind this includes all professions to a belief in an some spirtual being... (such as wholly inappropriately being included in the "Pledge of Allegience" which is, after all, a pledge to a secular entity... our government. What is truly needed is Freedom FROM religion....

Glad we settled that... On to guns!

-KC

 

[neonlyte]

Religions are not free to advocate practices that are against other laws. Radical preachers have been banned from the UK and/or arrested for calling for war against unbelievers. "Blasphemy" is still technically an offence by English Law and some of the wilder Muslim imams have been suggesting that it should be applied to their religion too despite the law effectively being dead by non-use by the Church of England for generations.

Some US "religions" have been banned in the UK. Scientology is close to the limit of what is allowed. Religions and Ministers do not have "rights" in the UK. IF they are a charity, and the laws about what can and cannot be a charity are being tightened, they could have a few tax advantages - but that is all.

The Church of England, currently meeting at the Lambeth Conference, already has some difficulties with its stance on the civil law about equal rights for men and women and for gays. Religious bodies are exempt from complying with laws about equality. Clubs and societies are not and some have had to change centuries of tradition to allow women as members.

There are some real anomalies. The Queen as Head of the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, are excommunicate by the rules of the Catholic Church, yet they meet The Pope. All Christians are "unbelievers" by Muslim standards and are therefore to be treated differently by Muslims. However the reality is similar to a club - if you are a member you have certain rights and privileges. If you aren't a member you are treated as a non-member. That's all that "excommunicated" and "unbeliever" means however hard some idiots try to interpret it as "lesser breeds without the law".

Og

Interesting post, Og. Fits neatly with Pure's points on 'qualification' and subsequently, legal interpretation.

 

[neonlyte]

the rights of privacy and free expression cover religion. I can't see any need to entertain religion as a right.

I'd imagine all religions (barring perhaps Buddhism) contain a de-facto element of proselytism which are in conflict with privacy and possibly free expression (ie other religions) So just leave religion out.

Property rights? Yeah.

What the hell, I'll chime in.

So. Religion. I agree with gauche, actually. But for sure, people outface death for the right to profess and manifest their religions. You can legislate your limits all you like, but if the religious do not see the reasonableness of your limits to free religion, they will give you and your society no peace, even if you send men out to kill them. Same for the right to hold no religion. Just try it. People will absolutely not put up with this right being legislated away.

I take your points. Personally... I'd be happy to leave Religion out.

The current French position of banning the Burqa (Persian spelling) is an example of how 'free expression' can be used to limit Religious manifestation. The garment is not threatening in the context of Religion but can be (legally?) manifested as threatening in the political context. Curiously, the French do not appear to have objection to the 'cover all' robe worn by some Arabian and African men, which could equally be used to disguise intent. The male attire is not generally seen as a manifestation of Religious belief but a mark socio-geographic upbringing. In other words, the French are attacking Religious manifestation and denying 'Freedom of Expression'.

I think Religion has to stay, if only to protect the rights of minorities to manifest their beliefs.

Gauche, I've flagged Right to Own Property as disputed

 

[neonlyte]

As to religion:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his/her religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his/her religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think it's generally good, but a person's right NOT to have a religion, or NOT to profess a belief, say, in god, could be clearer.

The point about "manifesting", i.e. practicing and making overt, is a good one. Expansion of wording improves the US BR's mention of "exercise" of religion, a narrower concept.

The problem with the second part of this is exactly the loophole the French are exploiting (see above) - it opens the door to politicians and the courts to interpret public safety, public order, and morals.

 

[Pure]

IMO, then, 2 would better read as follows:

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs--or lack thereof-- shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are demonstrably necessary in a democratic society; specifically this means that there maybe be limitations in the "manifestation" [exercize, practice, profession, proselytizing, etc] of religion, where a government can demonstrate in court--bearing the burden of proof, the onus--that criminal laws are being broken or that there is a serious, direct threat to public order. In general, one's rights in the exercize of religion do not extend past the point where the rights and freedoms of others, including those enumerated above, are substantially affected.