On October 11, 2006, district Judge Paul Paruk dismissed a lawsuit case between plaintiff, Ginnah Muhammad, and defendant, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, because of the plaintiff’s refusal to remove her veil in court (Murray,2010). The United States is viewed as a beacon of light for liberal democracies because of the widespread involvement of citizens in government, free elections, and emphasis on human rights. The US Department of State reports, “The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the U.S. over 200 years ago.” The US still holds the objectives behind its foundation in high regard and has gotten involved in spreading the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights across the globe. Article 18 in the Declaration of Human Rights and Article One in the United States Constitution issue freedom of religion for all individuals. Judge Paruk’s demand for Muhammad to remove her veil was viewed as a violation of civil rights and infringement of the free exercise clause in Article One by some, but other citizens saw this demand as just and necessary in order to uphold the Sixth Amendment which calls for fair trials (Paruk and Walid, 2006). The government’s main aim is to uphold constitutional rights, and there is debate about which rights hold precedent and are most valuable (Murray, 2010).
Let us begin by noting that any basic social structure faithful to liberal principles of political justice will inevitably prove nonneutral in its effects on many comprehensive doctrines and ways of life. This will be true for politically unreasonable doctrines and ways of life (militantly theocratic doctrines, or ways of life centered on violating the basic rights of others). But it may also prove true for comprehensive doctrines and ways of life more or less unopposed to most liberal political values (perhaps the doctrines or ways of life of certain traditional or anti-modern religious sects).
The Declaration of Independence, since July 4th, 1776, has continued to always become a guideline to protect those who are oppressed. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, “that all Men are created equal,” that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”” (Doc. A) sets the standards on what the United States of America is all about; equality. From the Report of American Horse by D.F. Royer on November 27, 1890 to the “Reminder Day” for Homosexual Rights on July 4, 1968, the Declaration of Independence continues to be the anchor document for many other documents to support those who are tyrannized from their rights.
The phrase ‘Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ lies at the core of the United States of America. It implies a list of unalienable rights that were declared in the Deceleration of Independence. These rights are social, economic, political and civil rights. Western societies are characterized by the fact that they provide all of these rights to their citizens. Many philosophical thinkers have argued for and against social rights. It is necessary to examine both aspects of the issue. Some thinkers believe that you can have civil and political rights without social rights and economic rights and others disagree. Throughout this essay we will examine Raymond Plant’s defense for social rights and Lawrence Meads critique of social rights, along with other theories that have been involved in the discussion.
John Rawls’s political ideology further illuminates the significance of interpreting the First Amendment’s relationship with tolerance. In his book, Political Liberalism, he offers commentary on modern religious quarrels. Rawls suggests followers of many Christian based faiths in the U.S today insist their Christian ideals must be used to establish laws. Nonetheless, Rawls reminds his readers no all-inclusive doctrine compels the loyalty of all people and pluralism is an enduring feature in life. Rather, he encourages an intersecting consensus must occur so citizens can agree on constitutional and political issues in society. For instance, a citizen may understand why a Catholic believer would make the Pope 's teachings binding law, but,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And with that, we broke the chains that bound us to the British Empire. We were finally independent. America was founded upon the idea of freedom – freedom of expression, freedom to pursue our happiness – an idea that was set in stone with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. These freedoms brought along with them the idea that “all men are created equal”. Upon learning of this, the rest of the world began to harbor assumptions of the kind of like that existed on American soil: men, women, and children frolicking through fields of flowers together, everyone free to say or do as they please. The truth, however, was quite different. Since the day that Europeans set foot in America, the freedom to express one’s ideas has been limited to select categories of people.
80% of the Canadian population and 95% of Quebecers support Bill 94. According to Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian principle, banning the niqab would be reasonable legislation. The core value of the utilitarian principle is “to maximize happiness and prevent pain and suffering” (Sandel, 2009, p. 34). He believes that the happiness of the majority outweighs the suffering of the minority. Bill 94 would make the majority of Canadians happy and only cause distress to the minority Muslim population. Theoretically the concept seems plausible, but when constructed in real world situations, it begins to deteriorate. Stuart Mill’s utilitarian approach provide...
The most apparent human right issue is the freedom of expression, whether it is of cultural and/or religious affiliation, through the physical display of their identity. The ban is illegalizing government employees from wearing this physical specimen of religious identity, being tha...
Marotte, B. (2013, 06 16). Sikhs celebrate reversal of Quebec’s soccer turban ban. Retrieved from www.theglobeandmail.com: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/sikhs-celebrate-reversal-of-quebecs-soccer-turban-ban/article12593818/
The Burqa is the tool of criminals. We know that the ability to hide your identity encourages criminal actions. The cases in Mainbrace show us this, terrorist suicide bombers using the Burqa show us this, Muslim motorists hiding from prosecution when they speed shows us this. We don't allow motorcyclists to wear their helmets and hide their faces in banks or at petrol stations, why should we allow muslims? Recent polls tell is that 81% of Australians are against wearing the Burqa in public. They know the solution to this threat to our safety — we must ban the