Yes it is a free country, but some people disagree.
No England is not a country. England is in the United Kingdom, which is a country.
They were treated very poorly and shared little rights, but on occasion were allowed to participate in government and business. They could also own property and slaves.
Hope this helps...I was just having a hard time looking for the same thing :)
Women didn't look for men in the 1800's, most marriages were arranged and decided upon by the father of the woman.
Because he need glasses to see well.
how did the NAACP help??? in Rosa parks situation???
how did the NAACP help??? in Rosa parks situation???
His favorite color is black or blue i am not sure but i think so that is all that the internet is saying
Nelson Mandella and/or Martin Luther King Jr. Technically they both did because they both got something out of it. If it wasn't for Nelson Mandella, blacks wouldn't have the same rights as whites and as for Martin Luther King Jr. blacks wouldn't be allowed to talk to the whites as we do today.
Ruby Bridges Dad's name is Abon, Her mother's name is Lucille She is married to Malcom Hall and has four children. Her mother and father are divorced.
The government should put a check on media to control rumors and fake issues that disappoints the nation and our society environment.
It depends on the country or time-period, Jews have lost and gained rights numerous times through history. Generally speaking, they gained their rights back through advocacy, but this was not the only way. Please resubmit this question referring specifically to the country and/or time-period in question.
Answer 1ONLY ISLAM not democracy or free election
Arab Spring Protesters had a variety of demands which a number of the Arab Leaders were not willing to concede. Some of these included, but were not limited to the following:
1) Democracy: Arabs want a hand in how their own governments create policy as opposed to the dictatorships in the Arab World that masquerade as republics when there are no elections. This is especially pertinent in countries like Syria or Bahrain where the unelected leadership represents the views of a minority religious group.
2) Economic Self-Sufficiency: Many Arabs see the current government s as having inadequately built up their economies both in terms of the governments' failure to create jobs and build internal infrastructure as well the governments' failure to make sure that grains like rice and corn remain affordable to the "average Dick and Jane Arab".
3) So-Called First Amendment Rights: Many Arabs, especially from unrepresented minorities (like Christians, Shiites*, Sunnis*, Bahai'i, and Zoroastrians) want the ability to openly pray to their Gods in their proper context and to do so on equal footing with the predominant religion (either Shiite or Sunni Islam). Arabs also want to have the freedom to criticize their leaders and to protest freely against them if need be.
4) Citizenship over Race/Religion: A major trend in the Arab World has gone unrecognized by the authorities prior to the Arab Spring. Most people in Arab countries belong to a certain ethnic, religious, and tribal group that the state identifies and discriminates between. Many protesters in the Arab Spring would prefer official recognition that all people who live within the borders of a country are citizens regardless of race or religion and should have equal rights and privileges.
5) Transparency: Arab Regimes are notoriously corrupt. Nepotism, racism, and many other non-meritocratic means are used to promote people into positions of power and wealth. Arab Spring Protesters want a government that is accountable to its people and that functions based on meritocracy.
Follow this link :) http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/Help/Financial/Temporary_Assistance.html
There are a number of organizations that are actively trying to stop human rights abuses. One of the best known is Amnesty International.
On March 6, 1857, in its Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Scott, a slave who had spent part of his life in non-slave territory, could not sue for his freedom in a federal court because, as the March 7 New York Times summarized, “Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution.”
The Dred Scott case occurred at a time when the slavery issue threatened to tear the country apart. Settlers were violently clashing in Kansas and neighboring Missouri regarding the issue, and in May 1856, a pro-slavery congressman beat an abolitionist senator into unconsciousness on the Senate floor.
The decision came just two days after the inauguration of President James Buchanan, a Southerner and supporter of slavery, who hoped the case could help settle the issue. The court, in addition to declaring that black people were not citizens, made several other rulings on slavery. It held that Congress did not have the power to abolish it in territories as it had done in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which banned slavery in northern territories. It also declared that Mr. Scott, or any slave, could not become free by spending time in free territory because he was still his owner’s property.
Rather than settling the slavery debate, the decision increased the animosity between pro- and anti-slavery factions, further divided North and South, and contributed to the start of the Civil War four years later. The outrage over the decision strengthened the anti-slavery movement, which united under the burgeoning Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln rose to prominence arguing against slavery and attacking the Dred Scott decision.
The Democrats, meanwhile, became divided as moderates like Stephen A. Douglas — famous for his support of slavery being decided in new territories by popular sovereignty, a policy that was negated by the decision — objected to calls by more hardline pro-slavery advocates for a national slave code. The split party lost to Mr. Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election, which precipitated the secession of Southern states and the Civil War.
The lords could not take the away the serfs' right to farm and live on the manor.
The concept of "rights" comes out of the Enlightenment. In the Middle Ages, a person had "privileges" which could be given or revoked by a living king. As a result, a person could do what they were allowed to do. This is in fundamental disagreement with the idea of "rights" because a right exists regardless of what the current laws say.
As of 2008, dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states & the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico & the U.S. Virgin Islands. In most states, the possession of dogs for the purpose of fighting is also a felony offense. Being a spectator at a dog fight is illegal in all states except Montana & Hawaii. Each violation can result in up to three years in jail & a $250,000 fine.
The suffragists spoke out for the abolition of slavery and women's rights. Lucretia Mott, was a Garrisonian abolitionist and a charter member of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society founded in 1833, and spoke out for all suffragists.
Auschwitz and Dachau have been preserved as museums. Some parts of Buchenwald are still standing and are a memorial site.
I don't think it is something you should randomly go out and do, but in some circumstances i would say so. for example, war. but don't think that if you ever hurt someone's child that their parent wouldn't come and hunt you down.
It is a document, statement or tenet containing an item or items that have been legally deemed as factual and lacking argument to the contrary.
there are 511 sections in ipc ( indian penal code)
1] no more slaves
2] woman can vote
3] first black president [goo obama!]
4] less hate crimes
5] states allowing gay/homosexual marriage
all that i can think of after all im only 15 :P
example : you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre when there isn't a fire .