scholarly journals Restriction on Religious Muslim Clothes in Kazakhstan

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhansulu Muratova
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Kazakhstan has always been linked to Islam religion. However, the question of Islamic religious clothes has only arisen recently and presents a controversy in secular, contemporary Kazakhstan. The main purpose of the present article is to review the development of Islam religion, the current situation regarding Islamic garments, and the reasons why the government is cautious about the presence of Islamic garments, moreover, the decree on prohibition of wearing headscarves in schools. In addition, the right to religion will be taken into account in order to understand the situation of citizens and their fundamental rights.

Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution: Could it include ‘Right to Sanitation’?

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 291-296
Author(s):  
Anil Kumar Mohapatra
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Safe Drinking Water ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Sanitation Facility ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Long before India gained independence, M.K. Gandhi remarked that the availability of Sanitation facility is more important than gaining Independence for an Indian. Of late, it is now increasingly felt and realized in India that facilities like toilet, safe drinking water, accompanied by good hygienic conditions are fundamental necessities of a person. These are prerequisites of social and economic justice and genuine development. The Supreme Court of India in one judgement held that Right to life and personal liberty, should include right to privacy and human dignity etc. Despite that it has been an admitted shame that India still has the largest number of people defecating in open in the world. There are reported incidences of rape and murder of women in many places in India as women rely on open field for attending to the call of nature in morning and evening. The attempts like Community toi-let system, pay-and-use toilet system and schemes like ‘Mo Swabhiman -Mo Paikhana’ have been found to be less effective. In this connection the ‘Clean India Mission’ campaign launched by the Government of India in 2014 has been regarded as a right approach in that direction. Government of the day is actively considering the demand to convert the Right to Sanitation from a developmental right to a fundamental right. It would make the state more accountable and responsible. Against this background, the paper argues that spending huge money on that would yield good dividend in future for the country.

scholarly journals India's homosexual discrimination and health consequences

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govindasamy Agoramoorthy ◽  
J Hsu Minna
Keyword(s):  
Hiv Infection ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
British Colony ◽  
Modern Fiction ◽  
The Government ◽  
Indian Penal Code

A large number of countries worldwide have legalized homosexual rights. But for 147 years, since when India was a British colony, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code defines homosexuality as a crime, punishable by imprisonment. This outdated law violates the fundamental rights of homosexuals in India. Despite the fact that literature drawn from Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and modern fiction testify to the presence of same-sex love in various forms, homosexuality is still considered a taboo subject in India, by both the society and the government. In the present article, the continuation of the outdated colonial-era homosexuality law and its impact on the underprivileged homosexual society in India is discussed, as well as consequences to this group's health in relation to HIV infection.

Human Rights of Indigenous Minorities in Tanzania and the Courts of Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Maina Peter
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Running Water ◽  
High Court ◽  
Modern Development ◽  
Hunting And Gathering ◽  
Indigenous Minorities ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

AbstractTanzania has several indigenous minorities. They include the Maasai, Barbaig, Hadzabe, Ndorobo and others. Some are still engaged in hunting and gathering, while others are pastoralists. The government is unhappy about their way of life and believes that it has a duty to “emancipate” these “backward” people by “civilising” them through bringing “modern development” to areas they live in. This is through the building of schools and hospitals, the provision of running water, etc. In the process of undertaking this mission, it has negatively affected the lives of these groups. It has destroyed their property, and displaced them from their traditional living areas. This has been done in total disregard to their ways of life, traditions, beliefs and above all the right to own property which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Some of the indigenous minorities whose rights have been violated by the government have decided to challenge the violation of their fundamental rights in the courts of law. This paper examines the handling of the cases related to the rights of indigenous minorities by the higher judiciary in Tanzania, particularly the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Experience indicates that, like the government, the judiciary has been sympathetic toward indigenous minorities.

scholarly journals Seeking the Source: Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Right to Source Code

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Bellovin ◽  
Matt Blaze ◽  
Susan Landau ◽  
Brian Owsley
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Computer Code ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Forensic Analysis ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to American jurisprudence. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees “due process,” while the Sixth provides the accused with the right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” But “time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.” So it is with software. From the smartphones we access multiple times a day to more exotic tools—the software “genies” of Amazon Echo and Google Home—software is increasingly embedded in day-to-day life. It does glorious things, such as flying planes and creating CAT scans, but it also has problems: software errors. Software has also found its way into trials. Software’s errors have meant that defendants are often denied their fundamental rights. In this paper, we focus on “evidentiary software”—computer software used for producing evidence—that is routinely introduced in modern courtrooms. Whether from breathalyzers, computer forensic analysis, data taps, or even FitBits, computer code increasingly provides crucial trial evidence. Yet despite the central role software plays in convictions, computer code is often unavailable to examination by the defense. This may be for proprietary reasons—the vendor wishes to protect its confidential software—or it may result from a decision by the government to withhold the code for security reasons. Because computer software is far from infallible—software programs can create incorrect information, erase details, vary data depending on when and how they are accessed—or fail in a myriad of other ways—the only way that the accused can properly and fully defend himself is to have an ability to access the software that produced the evidence. Yet often the defendants are denied such critical access. In this paper, we do an in-depth examination of the problem. Then, providing a variety of examples of software failure and discussing the limitations of technologists’ ability to prove software programs correct, we suggest potential processes for disclosing software that enable fair trials while nonetheless prevent wide release of the code.

scholarly journals O Direito Fundamental Social à Saúde na Constituição de 1988: A Garantia da Dignidade da Pessoa Humana entre o Poder Judiciário e a Ponderação de Princípios

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cássio Guilherme Alves ◽  
Caroline Müller Bitencourt
Keyword(s):  
Human Person ◽  
Rio Grande ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Rio Grande Do Sul ◽  
Santa Cruz ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

O DIREITO FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL À SAÚDE NA CONSTITUIÇÃO DE 1988: A GARANTIA DA DIGNIDADE DA PESSOA HUMANA ENTRE O PODER JUDICIÁRIO E A PONDERAÇÃO DE PRINCÍPIOS  The FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL RIGHT to HEALTH IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION of 1988: the guarantee of HUMAN DIGNITY AMONG the judiciary and the BALANCE of PRINCIPLES  Cássio Guilherme Alves* Caroline Müller Bitencourt**  RESUMO: No presente estudo se buscará a análise da realização do direito fundamental social à saúde no Estado Democrático de Direito, haja vista sua proteção constitucional na Carta de 1988. Após o reconhecimento da saúde como direito fundamental social, imprescindível a criação de mecanismos que garantam sua concretização quando o Estado for ineficiente ou se negar à prestação material necessária. Para fins deste artigo será utilizado o método hipotético-dedutivo com análise das teorias da reserva do possível x mínimo existencial vinculado aos princípios de direitos fundamentais para a garantia do direito à saúde. Dessa forma, o Poder Judiciário enquanto poder constituído possui em sua natureza jurisdicional a competência e prerrogativa para compor conflitos, devendo decidir o caso concreto na esfera da jurisdição constitucional, evitando que sejam cometidos abusos e restrições contra os direitos fundamentais. Assim, o direito fundamental social à saúde possui estreita vinculação com a dignidade da pessoa humana, não sendo possível pensar em vida com dignidade com restrições a este direito. Nessa seara, o Poder Judiciário se apresenta como importante ator na concretização e garantia do direito à saúde quando o Poder Público for ineficiente na sua promoção, devendo agir através da jurisdição constitucional para, com o uso do instituto da ponderação, preservar os direitos fundamentais na garantia do mínimo existencial vinculado à dignidade da pessoa humana no Estado Democrático de Direito. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. Direito Fundamental Social à Saúde. Poder Judiciário. Ponderação de Princípios. ABSTRACT: In this study will seek to analyze the carry out of the fundamental social right to health in democratic State of law, its constitutional protection in 1988. After the recognition of health as a fundamental right, essential to the creation of mechanisms to ensure its implementation when the State is inefficient or refuse to provide necessary material. For the purposes of this article shall be used the hypothetical-deductive method with analysis of theories of possible x existential minimum linked to the fundamental rights to the guarantee of the right to health. In this way, the Judiciary while power constituted has the jurisdiction and prerogative Court nature to compose disputes, and decide the case in the sphere of constitutional jurisdiction, preventing are committed abuses and restrictions against fundamental rights. Thus, the fundamental social right health has close linkage with the dignity of the human person, it is not possible to think of life with dignity with restrictions on this right. In this field, the Judiciary presents itself as an important actor in the implementation and guarantee of the right to health when the Government is inefficient in its promotion and should act through the constitutional jurisdiction to, with the use of weighting Institute, preserving fundamental rights in existential minimum guarantee linked to the dignity of the human person in the democratic State of law. KEYWORDS: Dignity of the Human Person. Fundamental Social Right to the Health. Judiciary. Balance of Principles.  SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 A Saúde como um Direito Fundamental Social e sua Vinculação com a Dignidade da Pessoa Humana. 2 A Colisão de Direitos Fundamentais e a Ponderação de Princípios. Considerações Finais. Referências.* Mestrando do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul.   ** Doutora em Direito pela Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul. Professora do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC), Rio Grande do Sul.

Wrestling with Constitutionalism: the Supermajority and the Hungarian Constitutional Court

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Vincze
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
European Context ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

AbstractSince the elections of 2010, the right-wing coalition has a supermajority in the Hungarian Parliament, and is able to amend the Constitution without any further ado. The Constitution became a part of the political tool-kit which may and is amended as the government needs it to be amended. Under these circumstances, the Constitutional Court cannot be a vigorous guardian of constitutional values, and the Parliament did everything in order to housetrain the formerly widely acknowledged Constitutional Court: cut back its powers filled the bench with rather loyal justices and blocked the critical decisions.The present article is aimed to describe and to critically analyze these strategies in a national and European context.

scholarly journals Implications of the Failure to pay the Required Electoral Deposit in South Africa: Analysing National Freedom Party v Electoral Commission

Afrika Focus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelo Dube
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Key Words ◽  
South African ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Intention To Participate ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Country

The right to participate in elections is one of the cornerstones of any democratic country. This is true of South Africa’s electoral process, which was put to the test in the case of National Freedom Party v Electoral Commission in 2016. To promote free and fair elections, certain safeguards must be put in place. These include notifying the Electoral Commission of an intention to participate in elections through the payment of a deposit on a specified date by the party intending to participate in elections, and the publication of an election timetable by the government. This research has found that once published, the Electoral Commission has no power to change the electoral timetable. The only remedy for a party that fails to comply with the electoral prescripts such as the payment of an electoral deposit lies under section 11(2)(a) of the South African Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act. Additionally, it found that the concept of free and fair elections takes into account the interests of all parties concerned, and not just that of the party that alleges unfairness stemming from the exclusion. Whilst the exclusion of a party can lead to the violation of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to regular free and fair elections, and the right to vote, it is important to note that this case clearly establishes the legal position that a party’s failure to comply with the legal prescripts, will bar that political party from obtaining a remedy for exclusion. KEY WORDS: ELECTORAL COMMISSION, ELECTORAL TIMETABLE, FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CONDONATION, NON-COMPLIANCE.

Cow Vigilantism and India’s Evolving Human Rights Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Human Right To Food

AbstractThe paper seeks to understand India’s evolving rights framework in the backdrop of cow vigilantism. To that end it discusses the human right to food and nutrition, international discussion on minority rights issues in India and the relevant legal and constitutional discussion in India. It finds that India’s rights framework has evolved since proclamation of India as a Republic in 1950 based on the supremacy of its written constitution containing fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy interpreted finally by its Supreme Court. The government took a wise step by not challenging a judicial rebalancing of the rights framework in response to certain executive measures and the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include not only the right to the choice of food but also the right to privacy and thereby underscored the obligation of the State to compensate the victims of cow vigilante violence. However, a constitutional polity and secular state would do all well if it did any further necessary to better guard against any recurrence of the breach of civil peace, much less violence, on purely secular issues, including by strengthening and increasing dialogue with all representative communities in all its decision-making on such matters.

Responses to Offensive Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-78
Author(s):  
Nicholas Hatzis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Offensive Speech

This chapter discusses whether there is a non-religious justification for limiting religiously offensive speech. The most commonly used argument is that the right to freedom of religion includes a more specific right to be protected from offence to one’s religious sensibilities. If this is correct, it provides a non-religious reason for censorship: even those who are hostile to religion can accept that religious freedom is an important right and that the government is justified in giving effect to rights. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly upheld restrictions on expression which insults religious feelings, reasoning that religious freedom, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, protects the religious sensibilities of believers from offence. I suggest that this interpretation is mistaken. After exploring how rights give rise to claims, I argue that there is no right-based claim to be protected from the unpleasant feelings caused by religious insults. Therefore, it is unpersuasive to describe cases of religious offence as involving the conflict of two fundamental rights—speech and religion—which require a balancing exercise to decide which one will prevail each time.

scholarly journals A Consistent Inconsistency—An Interpretationof Sections 23 and 56(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-403
Author(s):  
Barbara Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The writer advocates the view that courts interpret statutes so as to achieve their aim; that being justice in the case: as between the parties and in respect of the law. This is identified as the common thread that explains the apparent erratic behaviour of the courts in their use of the various methods or rules of interpretation. The Supreme Court decision, Attorney General of Québec v. 2747-3174 Québec Inc., is analysed against the background of this theory and is seen to give support to it. The court is shown to use various rules of interpretation, which lead the majority to a wide, and the minority to a narrow, interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec. Yet it is clear that in both cases the rules are merely a means to an end: justice as between the parties and in respect of the law. In context of the case, this means establishing a balance between the competing interests of the State and the citizen that conforms to the law relating to fundamental rights and in particular, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec. As far as the State is concerned, it has a vested interest in confirming the constitutionality of its many administrative tribunals, which play an essential role in enabling the State to discharge its responsibility to govern. Citizens, on the other hand, need to be protected from the violation of their rights, in particular the right to an independent and impartial tribunal in matters relating to the determination of their rights and obligations, or charges brought against them. The Charter must be interpreted so that, in its scope and content, it gives real protection, but, consistent with the separation of powers doctrine, the interpretation must not amount to a usurpation by the courts of the role of the government to govern. The writer concludes that the opposing conclusions of the majority and minority are more a consequence of the difference in the opinion of the judges as to the manner in which the balance should be struck, as opposed to the rules of interpretation used by them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document