Fundamental rights cannot be restricted except for cogent reasons. Gender selection is a part of reproductive choice, consequently, to restrict it is restrictive of that fundamental right. I argue that there is no justifiable rationalization to restrict this right. There are no significant reasons to veto gender selection. On the contrary, there are reasons for which it would be advantageous to allow it.
Customary law can't remain immutable. The problem for those trying to bring the two systems into line is that human rights law derives from a western legal tradition which frequently contradicts Aboriginal law. Colin McDonald, a Darwin barrister and expert in customary law, says that on such issues Australia's legal system may simply have to bite the bullet and go against the norms of international human rights. Aboriginal women have often claimed that the law has been slanted to support the rights of indigenous men over women. Lowitja O'Donoghue, who formerly chaired the government's Aboriginal affairs body ATSIC, believes that Australian law should be more aggressive in such cases.
The debate over affirmative action is a debate over the conflict of rights. This conflict of rights makes a clear-cut ruling or decision on the subject almost unattainable. However, there can be arguments made both for and against affirmative action. Supporters of affirmative action claim that racism and sexism can only be overcome by taking race and sex into account in finding a solution. They think that giving everyone equal rights is not enough to overcome the burden.
Conclusion Positive discrimination has been subjected to several opinions and leg, but the UK still look at equality from a symmetrical stand point and under EU law only differs from this in times of elections, and today renders any form of positive discrimination illegitimate, and only allows for positive action to help towards equalising any discrimination for the under-represented, but just because there is the encouragement and promise of training to encourage more of the under-represented groups to work, doesn't mean that e.g. women will actually be in a position to actually take the job. It is also worth noting that the individualistic viewpoint that is taken by the UK & makes positive discrimination unlawful is fine in a perfect world, but as mentioned in Marschall, stereotypes still exist which in reality means that men are promoted above women.
This theory gives us to think if women and man has total equality in our society. APPLICATION OF THEORY B Now, I would like to apply feminist legal theory to the Bedford case, the case it self shows that there is a need to revise the law that is discriminated and biased towards women. Therefore, we can find various facts in this case that is related the feminist legal theory. First, I can start of by informing how there are unbelievable amounts of academic violence against sex workers in our community and how our political process failed to address constitutional law. As I mentioned before, feminist theorist believe that there is a barrier in gender when it comes to equality in the society, which in this case we can relate it to how these women’s are considered less value and less than human in many ways.
Formal equality does not ensure the wellbeing of individuals based on race, ethnicity, sex, age etc. Unfortunately, this side of equality does not recognize diversity and is insufficient for promoting social inclusiveness. Even though it may give the illusion of equality and justice, it is actually creating inequality and is actually ending up discriminating individuals (EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2004). Substantive equality is referred to as equity in the sense that equality also involves recognizing differences when they are becoming disadvantages (Cheyne, O’Brien, Grave, 2008). Substantive equality looks at the roots of inequality and identifies them, even if this involves removing the barriers that disadvantage individuals.
"; it is the liberty of self-government. Negative liberty, on the other hand, is freedom from, and answers the question "How far does government interfere with me? "; it is the liberty of limited control by government. According to Berlin, negative liberty is freedom from interference from others; the larger the range of non-interference, the greater one’s negative liberty. As no individual’s actions are committed in a vacuum and will always indirectly affect others, this liberty must be reasonably restricted for the sake of other values, such as equality and justice.
The American cultural system of today is far different than the culture of the 1940’s, and my experience as a Southerner is quite different than that of someone from New England. Multiculturalism seeks to protect cultures from extinction, it is very dangerous to over-simplify a complex cultural system and identify it by its most extreme practices. Feminism and multiculturalism do have some of the same goals; chiefly, equality of rights for all human beings. It is true that some efforts of multiculturalism counter feminism’s goals to empower women, but I do not think that this must always be the case. Cultural sensitivity is not enough; we must consider cultural practices, the workings of the cultural system that supports them, and how that system itself came about.
Feminism advocates for neither gender holding more power than the other; therefore, if one does not support or consider themselves feminists, they are a sexist; believing one gender is superior to the other. It may seem contradictory, two movements can be used interchangeably and can have differences with one another. However, when looking at specific detailed roots of both equal rights and feminism, there is a difference. The difference between equal right and feminism is that feminism is solely focused on empowering women and balancing the powers of both genders, that they do not acknowledge the struggles and imprisonment of gender roles males have and do face. The equal rights movement is meant to fix the imbalance of sexes, this is different from the feminist theory that aims to rid society of the patriarchal hierarchy creating an equal playing field for both genders (Good,
While the authors disagree about the possible effects of this change in marriage, neither can accurately predict how it will affect issues unrelated to marriage. Opening the doors for marriage equality will either bring about greater freedom in many aspects of Americans’ lives or unlock the gates to a complete separation of morality and law