ANSWER: They serve to impede the spread of natural rights around the world. Women are people and have the same rights as men. This is what the womens movement is and should be about. If a woman has her rights abrogated and derogated, for whatever reason, she has been wronged and has every right to use our Constitutional government to redress those grievances. The phrase "womens rights" suggest that women have rights different than natural rights. This would be privilege, and it is not privilege that the women's movement wants, (at least I think that's correct) they want to enjoy their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Womens rights and gay rights and minority rights in general are so called "civil rights" which are granted by a government. Natural rights are owned by the people, always, at all times. The greatest minority in the world is the individual, and it is their natural rights, not civil rights that make them free.
Yes, during times of conflict.
There were at least two groups: women and slaves, that had no or few rights in colonial times.
Ceasar chavez has been arrested 150 times for protesting his rights!
According to the King Center, the civil rights leader went to jail 29 times.
yes
The government was allowed to take away individual rights in times of war.…
The government was allowed to take away individual rights in times of war.
Well first you have to ponder upon whether or not the inner extremas of the governmental sector were, at the time, elsewhere upon the questionable fragments presented. Answer The easy answer is that an individual's rights end where they interfere with the rights of the rest of us. However, when you consider times where people have been segregated due to race (Blacks and Jim Crow, segregation in the military, Japanese during WWII), medical data collected by insurance companies, political parties and marketeers, one has to wonder. National security begins with the individual being safe, and achieving a balance of law and intent is troublesome in these times of terrorists and change within countries.
Not at all. They can, at times, go hand in hand, at other times they may be diametrically opposed.
Human rights law focuses on protecting individuals' rights in peacetime, while the law of war (international humanitarian law) governs conduct during armed conflict to minimize unnecessary suffering and protect those who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities. Human rights law is applicable at all times, while the law of war applies specifically in situations of conflict.
Courts are more likely to suspend individual rights in favor of societal rights during times of national emergency, such as war, terrorism threats, or public health crises. In these situations, the government may argue that protecting the public or maintaining order outweighs individual liberties. Additionally, courts often defer to legislative judgments when it comes to balancing rights against the greater good, particularly in cases involving public safety or welfare. However, such suspensions are typically scrutinized to ensure they are necessary and proportional.
Common household products can cause an individual to become ill at times. For example, too much bleach inhalation can cause problems for a person and some household cleaners are so potent that they can make a person sick to their stomach.
Plunderers are people who steal or take things by force, especially during times of conflict or war. They are individuals who engage in looting or pillaging for personal gain without regard for the consequences or the rights of others.
A civilian is a non-military individual not actively involved in armed conflict or military service. A person belonging to the total mobilized force is part of the armed forces and may be called upon for military duty or deployment during times of conflict or war.
i need the answer -.-
Two wrongs don't make a right...but 3 rights make a left!