Lawyers in Denmark. All the lawyers Online


Civil liberties, the free encyclopedia


In march, we focus on the food and drink

(Read here about the sitenotice) Civil rights or merely civil rights are the rights a person has in virtue of the fact that he is a citizen of a societyThey differ from human rights which are universal rights one has in virtue of being human, and which are laid down in the universal declaration of human rights. The civil rights and the basis for them was formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the work 'Contract social' (English: The social contract, the social contract) in.

Since the first formulation, many have taken the subject or the sides of the up.

The starting point for Rousseau is that people as citizens have lost a part of the innate freedom in order to live in a community - society - and enjoy the benefits that such co-existence can provide. He puts it in the introduction to his work with the words: 'Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. He who believes himself the master of others is no less of a slave than these. How has this change happened. What can make it legitimate. I think I can answer this question. And he gives the answer - the final and complete answer - already in chapter one in book: 'the social order is a sacred right which serves as the basis for all others. This right, however, originates not from nature, consequently, exists on the basis of collective agreements'.

What Rousseau here have fat in - and as many 'human rights advocates' overlook - is the fact that civil rights are limitations of others (and in reality also one's own) freedoms.

Only by giving up part of his freedom to do what you want as well as to impose on themselves certain obligations to ensure that others have certain rights guaranteed.

In order to achieve this recognition discusses Rousseau initially appears relative, counteracting the security of civil rights. Chapter three is about the survival right. Rousseau says: 'as soon as, that it is the strength that creates the court, the cause with the effect of any force which exceeds the first, takes his right in the inheritance. As soon as you with impunity violate the law, it is legal, and because the stronger is always right, is it just to make sure to be the strongest'. He draws the end, that strength does not automatically create a right, and that one can only be bound to obey the legitimate power. But it requires a determination of what is 'legitimate power'. In chapter four he states, that slavery is not a right: to renounce his freedom is the same as to renounce his menneskeværd, on mankind's rights, even on its obligations. When you remove any freedom from man's will, remove you at the same time, any morality from his actions'. This leads on to chapter: 'how to find a society with the whole of the common strength defends and protects each of the affiliated person and property.' The answer is: through a samfundspagt.

Or, as expressed in chapter: through the civil society: 'that which man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything that tempts it, and that it can achieve what it wins, is civil freedom and property in everything he possesses'.

Rousseau makes a distinction here between: In the modern society (arising from the mid-s) is mentioned in the constitutions (e.g. Denmark, the Kingdom bill of rights) as a rule, among other things, the following rights for citizens: the Community is given the right to slow down the attempts of its corrosion, thus the right to prohibit associations and similar with samfundsomstyrtende purpose. Society must ensure the maintenance of law and order, a state of affairs. It requires a comprehensive legislation, a jurisdiction equally for all, and an executive authority to carry out the domsmyndighedernes orders.

These ideas were in Danish because already formulated in the cambridge companion to the Royal Law.

In addition, society must ensure its citizens rights in the form of both a certain freedom of action within the framework of the law, secondly, the possibility of influence on the development of society (ytringsret, the right to vote and the like) and, secondly, security in the event of accident, illness, bankruptcy, unemployment and so on. In addition, society must ensure the performance of tasks, which is best tackled by the community as a monetary system, education, nursing, and the relationship to other communities (foreign and defence policy). Finally, the society must ensure the the way of life that is the basis of society. Therefore, the best state in the nation state with only one culture. Of course, a state may, under certain conditions, allow and even protect the cultural minorities, but only so long as it does not abandon its responsibility to the majority. The minority who do not respect the majority's right, can not be subsumed in society and must forstødes.

Rousseau articulates this in chapter one of book four in the contradiction between the egenvilje and fællesvilje: 'as long As a number of assembled people consider themselves as a single body, they have only a single will, which stands in connection with the common maintenance of life and the common good.

As are all the state embedsområder strong and simple, its maximer is clear and obvious it has no foggy, contradictory interests of the common weal shows obvious everywhere and requires to be discovered only common sense. A state governed in this way, have need of very few laws, and gradually, as it becomes necessary to promulgate new, seen this necessity universal'.

You can also participate in this year's forårskonkurrence

Reverse: 'when the social knot begins to loosen and the state to weaken, when særinteresserne begins to be felt and small societies to influence the large, modified fællesinteressen and get the opponents, the consensus has no longer in the votes, the general will is no longer everyone's willingness, contradictions and debates arise. in short, when the state on the brink of destruction no longer exist in anything other than an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in all hearts, when the usleste interest brazenly jewelry with the joint vels holy name, then the general will mute led by the secret motives of votes of all not more as the nationals, who had the state never existed, and are false in law's name unrighteous decrees, who only has særinteressen as target'. In this situation there are only two possible ways out, as Rousseau points out in chapter: 'Suverænen can not force anyone to believe in these dogmas, but it can expel anyone who doesn't believe in them, from the state can ban the person, not as gudsfornægter, but as samfundsnedbryder, as one who is incapable of sincerely loving the laws, justice and, if necessary, to sacrifice life, when the duty features the. If someone - after publicly to have acknowledged these same dogmas - behave as if they do not believe in them, should this be punished with death. For he has committed the greatest of all crimes: he has lied to the law'. The first of these possibilities, the promise, was in extensive use as used in the classical Greece under the name of ostracisme, and it is basically the reason that the world is divided into many distinct communities, each with their own rules for the rights of citizens. The second option is used partly by the tyrants and dictators who basically do not recognize neither any community's right to exist (among other communism, islamic fundamentalism), and in the form of the statutory death penalty to criminals, whose acts shall be considered to be beyond any forgiveness. Thus was He punished with death for his total denial of the state's (society's) right to determine what is right and what is not.

Civil rights are rooted in human rights, but does not coincide with them.

In virtue of the duties of society, as a community, to every single citizen and the citizens as a whole, the community can in certain cases be necessary to prohibit certain lifestyles and instead, refer people who want to live differently, to seek this done in a second addition, to better fit society. When certain minority groups trying to impose on a society to organise itself after just their way of life, society has - if this is considered incompatible with the basis of society - the right and obligation to shield itself with such funds as are necessary therefor. For example, is pedophilia prohibited in many communities, because this is considered to harm children on their soul. Although pedophilia may be inherited and therefore a 'human right', is considered in most societies, not as a right of citizens. A variant of this - arranged marriages between older men and nubile women - is considered in certain communities for acceptebelt, in the other not.

Similarly, among the second plural marriage.

Slavery and trafficking in human beings was in førmiddelalderlige and also in some later societies accepted but is hardly in the present. Discrimination on the basis of sex, creed and or race to be accepted in some societies, in others not.

Thus, certain religious sects through the ages have formed their own society in order to live in accordance with their trosmåde.

For all such cases, there is coincidence between the perception of civil rights and menneskerrettigheder. Another example: when south Africa under the white controlled recent years established 'homelands' for the different tribal peoples (zulu, and more), this was stamped as an expression of 'racism' and thus in violation of human rights, while at the same time was a step to ensure just citizenship in homogeneous tribal societies. A fundamental problem here is that by invoking 'human rights' undermining the groups is often the very basis of the society they happen to be born and or reside in. 'Human right' thus becomes a stamp that can be used - and is used - to call upon itself the right to the most subversive action or to impose upon society their own lifestyles. These groups defy the social contract just as Rousseau described it. Civil rights are linked to ihændehavelsen of citizenship. Inhabitants without citizenship will also have a limited borggerrettigheder and duties. As a general rule, the right to vote, to stand as a candidate, membership of political parties and the military, which is reserved for the inhabitants with citizenship.

Under certain conditions, immigrants can be awarded citizenship.

It assumes, as a rule, partly to stay of a certain duration in the country, and partly to the application thereof, partly beståelsen of a borgerskabsprøve, which ensures that the applicant can be expected to be loyal to the new homeland. However, there are countries where it is not possible for the immigrant to obtain citizenship under any circumstances. Also can the marriage be the basis for the allocation of citizenship, if the spouse already has citizenship.