Talk:Civil liberties/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

duty to have civil liberties

It is a duty to have civil liberties —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanangel300 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Civil Rights as Civilian vs. Military

The statement "which are those civil liberties and civil rights held by citizens or civilians, as distinguished from those held by members of the military" which is made in the context of the Constitution of the United States is profoundly confused. In the United States, the members of the military have NO rights above and beyond the citizenry, and are considered FULL and EQUAL citizens, entitled to all rights, privilieges and imunities of any other citizen. In other words, there is no such thing as "military" rights that can be contrasted with "civil" rights.

To imply otherwise is to BADLY mischarcterize the nauture of civil liberties in the United States.

Civil liberties were (orginally) distiguished from POLITICAL liberites (the right to vote) and other priviliges and immunities that do not have fundimental standing as a human right or a right of man, such as the "right to slience" which is often characterized as a privilege, not a right.

Inserting a link...

Is it appropriate to include a link on this page that has the original article that is spoken about? I am referring to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0%2C%2C2710-1218615%2C00.html and the final paragraph in the section about Civil Liberties in the United Kingdom.

How should this link be formatted? Should it be suggested as the original source of information or rather a further resource? Thank you. Adamburton 16:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't understand the wording of a piece of the particle, which says the Constituion of Canada is similar to the U.S. with the exception of the protection against establishment of religion. However, in the Establishment of Religion article, it says it is against establish of religion. Am I confused, or does something need to be changed?

The Right to Privacy

• How can there be any right to privacy without any ownership of private property? If the socialist government of the United States continues to confiscate all privately-owned land and property under the doctrine of "sustainable development", there will eventually be no right to privacy left for Americans. This right to privacy might cease to exist; because there would be "no room left for it".
  • Wikipedia is not a forum for political discussion. You referring to the USA govt as socialistic just shows your ignorance. Obama is a neo-liberal, not even social-liberal... (Liberal in the actual sense of the word... not what you use in the US. The actual meaning of the word Liberalism, which is used in Europe (see Adam Smith & John Stuart Mill, etc.). How do I know this? Well... I'm a Marxist, and Obama is not. Centril (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course there can not be privacy without private property, including intellectual property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

China

I removed some petty vandalism and hopefully someone with more knowledge on this subject can just edit the section to include a brief synopsis of the main article on Chinese civil liberties which is linked to in this section: TG312274 23:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How can any person or a goverment machinery who was not directly appointed by an individual in situation but by the assumed mass that even doesnt know of the individual can take the liberty to even claim to judge an aindividual who suffered of the situation by the unacceptable means like an official position can define and take liberty to constrain an individual in any country? be it india or US or Canada or any country. Where is the law that protects an individual from the arragance of the self appointed officials and officials appointed by the goverment who actually don't comply and act lesser to individual?

'Interdisciplinary project'

May I draw your attention to a new article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_tracking . We're there in the early stages of a discussion of a weapon that puts civil liberties into a degree of danger that has been unknown so far. I'm talking about GPS/GSM bugs. These devices do not only constantly determine your car's whereabouts, they also transmit its geographical coordinates to your surveillant(s). These devices are tiny and so sensitive nowadays, that they can be hidden somewhere at your car (even below it) and still keep on working.

Please read 'GPS tracking', spread the word and help us solving the issue through your civil liberties input!

Michael Laudahn 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House Link

I removed the following link because it was broken:

• Freedom House country ratings

The Freedom house folks seem to have re-designed their site, and the country ratings are somewhat buried. Should we try to link to the rankings page, or directly to the PDF for 2006? It would be helpful for this site to provide an easy link (Rather than a dynamic link) to the ranking content. Perhaps we can just point to their homepage? Does anyone have an opinion? Anca 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Made some edits, and removed the cleanup tags. :) --Noypi380 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I rearranged the introduction and qualified some sweeping statements. I also moved the commentary on civil liberties in the UK away from the more descriptive section on civil liberties and their constitutional status around the world and into its own section.Atticus Finch 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Self Defense

Should not the right to self-defense, for example, the right to arms, be considered a civil liberty? CS 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Every thing that someone claims is a right, is a right... and can also be called a civil liberty... this is why the words Right & Liberty & Freedom are so meaningless....
It should be known, that rights disable other rights... e.g. the right to bear/create arms hinders me from the right of not worrying about the existence of arms. Your property rights create systemic risks for others, and when a trade is made between 2 sides, it can cause an externality, violating the rights of a third part. This is one of the cornerstones in the critique of Capitalism and why free markets don't work... I can claim the right to own with a community... and that I have the right of medical treatment, or the right to an education... all of this violates your private property rights. And I favor the right of private property be removed, and replaced with the ownership by the community.

The phrase Civil Liberties is a phrase which you can fill in with whatever is popular at the time, it doesn't tell you much.
Rather than rights & freedoms, I'd rather talk about other things of value.
Rather than economic freedom, I want to talk about economic security/stability.
Instead of freedom of speech, I prefer to talk about the ability to communicate without hinder. Call it Freedom of Communication. Freedom of Lifestyle is important (it should include, freedom of&from religion, sexual, etc., and exclude pedophilia & property rights and things that physically harm another person or provides externalities...).

I see you've linked together the right to self-defense (which I respect) with the right to bear arms.
I think this is flawed. The production (the right to bear arms requires __production__ and is my main issue...) of arms is dangerous for society... if there wouldn't be any guns in the world, then guns would not pose any threat to anyone.
Then we will have the problem of knives, and this we can't remove, but I think it is enough here.
If you were serious about self-defense, you'd be for Conscription, and the extreme reduction of military size, etc.
Disable/reduce the systemic risk of you being forced to defend yourself and you've done a heck of a better job than the right to bear arms.
Centril (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Right to Bear Arms

This article suggests that this right might not be a civil liberty. I object on two grounds: (1) It is a fact that within the US this is a long-established and fundamental civil liberty (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) and (2) no citation or support is offered to prove that the 2nd Amendment does not exist. Revising the POV challenge to the actual existance of this civil liberty should be a priority, unless substantil evidence is offered that this is not a civil liberty anywhere at all.

For balance, many nations recognize that individual criminals possess a civil liberty that precludes their execution for their crimes. This is a second example of a civil liberty that is present in some, but not all societies.

I suggest a section titled something like NATIONAL VARIENCE IN CIVIL LIBERTIES to hndle these important issues. These variences of recognized civil liberties cause serious issues for inter-governmental cooperation. One example would be the constitutional lack of authority of the US to enter into treaties (Second Article of the United States Constitution)such as the International Criminal Court treaty because the civil liberty to guarantee that no American may be tried before a judge (Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution)is not recognized in Europe or elsewhere. Another example is the refusal of many nations to extradite criminals to nations that might legally execute them. In both of these cases, serious conflicts between nationally recognized civil liberties impair international cooperation. Raggz 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like national variations seems in order, since as it stands now, right to bear arms, not recognised in most of Europe at least, is implied to be a common civil liberty (in general), and it seems, on the grounds of its status as such, as you say, in the US constitution amendment. Articles should have a more international scope than that.--89.172.85.70 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The US Bill of Rights has property rights (5th) and right to bear arms (2nd) so both should be included as must civil liberties, at least within the US but also in the free world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the "right to hold and bear arms" is removed from the introductory paragraph. there should be a section at the foot of the article, cross referenced to the global summary at Right to keep and bear arms Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Stasis and the Evolution, Exercise, and Protection of Civil Liberties

The article views civil liberties to be more or less in stasis, that present civil liberties are likely to resemble those likely to exist in a generation or two. The United Kingdom's history is especially rich in regard to sustaining civil liberties, while most of European history (and world history) is of ephemeral civil liberties. Are there other societies where access to civil liberties have been maintained for centuries without interruption?

This topic is critical, if we think that maintaining access to present (or expanded) civil liberties is important. Raggz 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Right to Trial by Jury

The Right to Trial by Jury is a critical civil liberty, perhaps not so important for individuals as to society at large. This article does not discuss the right to trial by jury which many consider to be the reason that the UK and the US have such a relatively long uninterupted history of access to civil liberties. Thomas Jefferson and many since have strongly claimed the critical importance of this oft neglected civil liberty.

Without the assistance of German judges, could Hitler have dominated Europe? Without politically appointed judges could Nazi rule over Europe been successful? Tyrants always install new judges, trials by jury are far mre difficult for tyrants. If the People of China were offered this single civil liberty, clearly they could use it as a lever to obtain the other civil liberties they now lack? Raggz 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to inclusion of right to trial by jury in common, and especially critical civil liberties, since its mostly only an anglosaxon tradition, and again, its not fair to define civil liberties in general on customs of a very few countries. Even though I really like this aspect of anglosaxon law personally, thats just not enough for inclusion in a general article. Couldnt some more general and international source on civil liberties be used for framing such dilemmas in this article, instead of personal choices and local traditions of editors? --89.172.85.70 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can freedom exist without state?

The whole article looks very strange, it seems based on the bizzarre idea that people can be free without state. Like Hobbes and Rousseau never existed. How can you have private property without state? how can you follow your religion? (unless there is only one religion). It seems based on the mith that freedom is always less state, even when state disappears. Probably it is written form the point of view of people that have a large amount of power and do not want that a state imposes them some limitations. Maybe the article is simply POV.Truman (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Numerous theorists have though like Thomas Jefferson: civil liberties are a natural concept regardless of states. If somebody tries to violate my freedom, I can, e.g., defend myself alone or with my friends or with righteous people or have a security service or a state do it. However, some theorists, such as Robert Nozick, argue that a state is the least evil for protecting the freedom of individuals. This question is not to be solved in this article - the possible protector of freedoms, whether a state or rebels, such as those in the late Roman kingdom, need not be mentioned here. --Emmisa (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

From the first sentence Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the individual from the government I understand that the actual enemy of civil liberties is the government. This is a concept that should be demonstrated.Truman (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article needs work

This article is listed in the WP1.0 Core supplement, so I reviewed this for our next release but regretfully had to fail it. This article simply contains a longish lead section then a description of civil liberties in a few selected countries. There is surely so much more to say on this topic? Please let us know if it gets stronger. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let we start from the initial settlement: Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government to a certain extent. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

This definition can stay inside anarcho-capitalism, but is not generally agreed. As an example, the italian constitution says (Art. 34.) that it a task for the State to make effective the rights of the citizens, meaning that abstract liberties are meaningful without an environment that allows them.

So it can be agreed that sometimes the citizen could need some form of protection from the state, but, on the other side, the state could make effective liberties that would otherwise remain theoretical. This second side appears forgot in the article.Truman (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg

The image File:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Civil libertarianism here

• The two short references do not support the long WP:Original research article. And one is not even WP:RS.
• "Civil libertarianism" is used merely as a description of consistent application of civil liberties, but it's still redundant to put in its own article if someone actually came up with the relevant sources.
• A mention of those who support civil liberties as civil libertarians is sufficient. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Done CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian section

The Canadian section seems unnecessarily American-centric. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought to be described by its own merits, not in reference to another nation's equivalent documents. 207.188.90.178 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Matters of dispute

It is claimed that: reproductive rights, civil marriage, and the right to bear arms are examples of quite controversial civil liberties.
The right to bear arms is not very controversial in Europe. Most Europeans don't like it and do not recognize this right which is so popular in the USA.
Reproductive rights & civil marriage are not very controversial in northern parts of Europe either (e.g. Norway & Sweden).
This leads me to believe that the controversial subjects are mostly controversial in USA, while maybe mildly controversial in other places. Reproductive & Civil Marriage rights may also be controversial in parts of Africa, and similar underdeveloped parts of the world (I say this, based on the POV that Scandinavian/Northern-European countries such as Norway & Sweden (in particular) are the most socially developed countries in the world). And finally, this leads me to believe that this is written with the POV of USA.

One of the most (I believe, the most) controversial rights of modern post-feudal times is the right of private property.
To demonstrate this, I turn to the conflict between/as: Marxism/Communism/Socialism | Social-Democracy/Social liberalism | Liberalism/Neo-Liberalism/Capitalism/Conservatism/Fascism. I thus motion for the addition of the right of private property as a controversial subject (at least in political debate), to the current list.
Rollback if you disagree... Centril (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Capitolist Punishment?

"...with emphasis on College and Public school students on capitolist punishment, in distinction to political rights..." I'm confused as to what this phrase means or if it is just a spelling error. It should probably just be capital punishment, am I correct?98.110.61.136 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Dash23

It is nonsense, I presume vandalism, since the person who put it there has have every other edit he made reverted. He is now up to 100%. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Right to refuse treatment?

Could anything be added about medical rights eg the right to refuse treatment, the right to access treatment, the right not to be sterilised etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.150.133 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Civil Libertarianism?

I find this definition curious: "An individual who "actively supports or works for the protection or expansion of civil liberties" is called a civil libertarian". On this basis a person who works for the ACLU would also be called a civil libertarian? Does anyone else see the irony here? Edunoramus (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As a stongly civil libertarian I can say the ACLU does not represent us well. The ACLU is biased to liberal causes just as the Cato Institute is biased towards the conservative causes. Civil libertarianism should not be partial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad this article exists

Too often, when someone describes himself as a civil libertarian, uneducated people immediately assume that he is a member of the Tea Party or is advocating extreme right wing economic policies. This article helps clear up that misunderstanding much better than it would if it were merged. 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.136.28.139 (talk)

Rodneyh318

Recent addition:

There were many acts put in place to preserve and protect the civil liberties of Americans in our history as a nation. One of the largest acts was known as the McCaarran Act of the post 1945 Red Scare. This act served as protective defense in case of internal emergency within the government. For example, if there was an emergency within the internal security of the State, the McCarran Act allowed the president to detain any individuals who were suspected of taking part in suspicious activities, or even sabotage. This act was said to be one of the most significant pieces of anti-Communist passed during the McCarthy era.

The McCarran Internal Security Act served a completely opposite purpose than "to preserve and protect the civil liberties of Americans". AV3000 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Right vs Freedom

what is the relationship between right and freedom?--85.104.54.249 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It stinks

I have read the article plus several other articles from de "See also" list. I didn't find any reference about the historical development of the subject. Who? What they did? Where? When? What ideas they introduced? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Do you have any particular reason to withhold such "minor" details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)