Racism Review
Janet "Marie" John 5 April 2010 PS 201 Newman The Perception of Racism Has Eclipsed Actual Racism At Issue: Is Racism A Serious Problem? I. Response "The nature of racism has changed, so although it continues to exist, racism now is different from the historical, systematic oppression of black people." Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution in his article "Does Racism Matter?" presents that racism today is drastically different in nature than that of racism seen in yesteryear. Steele, using the diction and both modern and older connotation of 'racism', allows him to argue the change in racism and the major differences he has noticed. Steele begins his argument with a list of questions he rhetorically asks to provoke thought and interest: "Is racism now a powerful, subterranean force in our society? Is it so subtly infused into the white American subconscious as to be both involuntary and invisible to the racist himself?" With this list, Steele begins his analysis by acknowledging the end of a key aspect to racism as it is historically known: the death of white supremacy. This statement aligns well with the writer's opinion that racism has changed from its original form into its current state. Typically, the word 'racism' creates a memory or connotation of stereotypical whites oppressing blacks, which would better align with the original form of racism seen years
What effect does a concern for cultural diversity have upon justifying universal human rights?
What effect does a concern for cultural diversity have upon justifying universal human rights? It is common knowledge in the world over that we now have multi cultural societies, with everyone having different views on what is morally right or wrong, supporting different religions and ideologies. These differences of opinion and differences in society are what makes our world such a richly fascinating and diverse place to be. However in having this cultural diversity, are our human rights less valid and do universal human rights infringe upon cultural diversity, can we justify universal human rights if there is cultural diversity? This is a common concern when talking about universal human rights, and is something that I will be discussing throughout the course of this essay. Firstly it is important to understand exactly what human rights are and who has them. The answer is simple according to philosophy, all persons (a person is defined as somebody who is self conscious) have human rights whether they are aware of it or not. Human rights have been defined by Nickel (1992:561-2) as 'basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people... Human rights are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as
Does the UK need a Bill of Rights?
Should the Human Rights Act 1998 be changed, and if so, how? Currently, the matter of whether or not a Bill of Rights should be introduced in Britain is a focal part of the political discussions. This is evident in the current Green Paper, which sets out several points that should be approached in terms of constitutional reform, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights is strongly suggested1. However it is important to consider what can be achieved in terms of a Bill of Rights, as well as looking at the Human Rights Act and seeing why it is deemed insufficient in the area, and whether or not it really is insufficient. The government outlines several reasons as to why a Bill of Rights should be introduced. Essentially they are claiming that the Human Rights Act is just the initial step in introducing human rights as an integrated part of British culture2. Also, the Human Rights Act has created a lot of negativity from a public point of view and changing it to a Bill of Rights is an effort to make it more publically accepted; a means of 'bringing rights home'3. A brief history of the Human Rights Act is relevant to look at, as it will help in understanding why the Act has brought about negative attention. The Human Rights Act 1998 was part of a plan to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into British law4. It was a way to ensure that Human Rights
Death Penalty Arguments
Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty Imagine, a person walking down a dimly lit hallway with their hands and feet chained with heavy shackles that restrain them from taking strides no longer than a foot. This person has just finished their last meal and is being lead by security guards to a confidential room where only a selected number of people are allowed in. He is seated into a wooden chair and asked "Any last words you'd like to say before we continue?" This is the fate of a criminal on death row. The death penalty is a controversial topic that has been put up for debate. The debate has been going on for many years and yet there is no end in site. Most likely, one has seen the topic splattered across the front page of the morning newspaper. If not, then they must have been fooled by the death penalty's many nicknames including execution and capital punishment. Those are only a few of the disguises the death penalty uses to conceal itself in the public eye. For as long as there has been capital punishment, there was always the dispute that came along with it. The question is: should the death penalty be abolished? This is a matter of opinion but there are a vast number of reasons why the death penalty should not be outlawed. The death penalty is the best method of punishing atrocious criminals while still fulfilling a moral standard. First of all, the death
Human Rights Convention violation: Art. 2, 3, 8 and 10
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was formed with the guidance from the Council of Europe in 1950 to protect the fundamental freedoms that are taken for granted and human rights. States who are members of the Council are party to the ECHR with joining members expected to follow suit. Cases from the United Kingdom could only be heard in Strasburg until the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is a statute to re-enforce the values laid out in the convention. There are a number of possible article violations one would look to address, the first being a violation of article 2; the right to life. This article in essence provides that the Government and public authorities or state agents must protect the right to life. This may require, for example, that the police have to protect someone whose life is under immediate threat. It could also be used to argue that a patient should be able to get treatment that would save their life or in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom1 in which assisted suicide was the issue. Generally, there will be a breach of Article 2 if someone is killed by a state official for example the police or prison officers. The only circumstances where there will not be a breach are set out in the second part of the article. However, where a death occurs in each of these three circumstances the responsible official will have to show that
Omar Khadr and Child Soldiers
Critical Response Child Soldiers' Personal Battles: Enlightening a Perspective of International Justice and Politics through the Cases of Omar Khadr and Dominic Ongwen Wars and conflicts always take the greatest of its tolls among the most vulnerable sectors of society; the children are definitely one of these sectors. Particularly upon the establishment of new war conventions such as the Geneva Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children are sought to be protected in any form of detriment to their ideal state (Pais n.pag.). Unfortunately, the conventional definitions of children's rights and the barriers it should have set against the potential harmful elements in a child's life are not followed as reverently as it suggests. In a very dramatic and even theatrical description of the current state of children when it comes to wars and conflicts, they are helpless and hopeless. Children in conflict zones are helpless because policy makers and governments appear to grow too comfortable with the existence of these conventions that little work is needed to be done. In a similar way, they are hopeless because children in conflict zones appear to be a mostly affected sector in a comprehensive network of loops- an unbreakable cycle of wars and conflicts. It should be noted that this critical response would not focus on the dramatic and theatric accounting of
Human Rights Act 1998: Are all human rights absolute and inalienable?
Transfer-Encoding: chunked Week 6 Assignment Introduction The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates the majority of rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the UK legal system. Some rights therein are considered to be absolute and inalienable such as the prohibition on torture, whereas others such as the right to liberty are derogable in times of emergency. Legal and anthological scholars have introduced the dual concepts of cultural relativism and universalism into the human rights debate. While both positions have their strengths in leading to the enhancement of human conditions, cultural relativistic positions have also been used in relation to the subordination of women. Hence, it is revealed that culture itself is never absolute, and when constructed by institutions, such cultural defence is unable to undermine the opposing notion of the universality of human rights. The Human Rights Act The introduction of the HRA was intended to receive the ECHR into domestic law.[1] Section 3(1) HRA requires that legislation must be interpreted by national courts as compatible with Convention rights.[2] Section 2 HRA requires that the national judiciary should take account of any relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence.[3] Section 4 enables a court to make a declaration of incompatibility if it is not possible to construe the relevant legislation to
![Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case)](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/82502/listing/82502_1.jpg)
Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case)
Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. (Public Interest Case) Between 1964-70, whilst a Minister of the Labour Government, Richard Crossman kept diaries of Cabinet proceedings. It was his intention to publish the diaries, giving the public a detailed account of government affairs. Following Crossman's death in 1974, the diaries were left to a number of literary executors, including the defendants to ensure its publication. In January 1975, extracts of the diaries were published in the Sunday Times. This though was without the approval of the Cabinet Secretary, as was the normal practice for such material. Subsequently, the Attorney-General bought action for two injunctions. Firstly, to prevent the publication of the diaries by the literary executors, and secondly, to enjoin the Sunday Times from any publication of extracts. The Attorney-General's arguments were based on the convention of collective responsibility and the ensuing doctrine of confidentiality. It was contended that the contents of the diaries were confidential, thus publication would be contrary to public interest and the convention of collective responsibility. The action for injunction though, was significant as there was no precedent in this area. Whilst the equitable doctrine of confidence had developed so not to allow profit from the disclosure of information received in confidence over
Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In the form of a short essay, consider the following three questions.
01/05/05 Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In the form of a short essay, consider the following three questions. What kind of primary source is this and what strengths and weaknesses does it have as a source for your study. 2 Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it. 3 What can you learn from this source with respect to Paris during the Terror? You should distinguish, where appropriate, between witting and unwitting testimony. The reign of terror Paris April 1793 - July 1794 (dates supplied by Encarta; French Revolution) the primary source being examined is part of a speech made by Jacques Roux to the French Convention on 25th June 1793 (Open University A103 assignment). This is a source of primary evidence relating to the French revolution, in particular to the events covering the beginnings of the Reign of Terror. Looking at this piece of evidence its strengths are that it is a document of record, a speech made to an official assembly, recorded and reported on. Also being in Paris at this time Roux may have been in an excellent position to comment upon the problems faced by the people at ground level, or at least within his own circle of influence. Roux would therefore be aware of the people's views towards the revolution, Convention and the
Bellinger v Bellinger case note
Bellinger V Bellinger Facts of the case Bellinger v Bellinger is a case concerning the validity of the marriage of a transsexual woman. The appellant, Elizabeth Ann Bellinger was a post-operative male to female transsexual. In 1981, Bellinger married a male partner, several months after having an operation to remove the testicles and penis and create an artificial vagina but still 'without ovaries or any other biological characteristic of a woman',1 her first claim was to seek that this marriage was deemed valid. Furthermore, the appellant sought a declaration of incompatibility . The incompatibility lay between S11[c] of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that provides a marriage is void if 'the parties are not respectfully male and female'2 and Article 8 (right to respect private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Johnson J and the court of appeal both declined to grant the petition. However a 'fresh claim was brought in response to two decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered in July 2002, Goodwin v United Kingdom and I v United Kingdom, in which the Corbett criteria was unanimously rejected by the Court'3. These rulings, with Bellinger led the way to legislative reform for recognising the gender of transsexuals in the UK. Legal issues and