Civil liberties
Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process.
Influential advocates of this interpretation include John Stuart Mill, whose work On Liberty argues for the protection of individual freedoms from government encroachment, and Friedrich Hayek, whose The Road to Serfdom warns against the dangers of expanding state power.
[1][2] Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto further emphasize the importance of safeguarding personal autonomy and limiting government authority.
Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.
[10] The Fundamental Rights – embodied in Part III of the constitution – guarantee liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India.
Specifically, they resulted in the abolishment of untouchability and prohibited discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.
In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation.
The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.
[17] The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.)
This constitution may have felt like a foreign imposition to the governing elites, but not to the ordinary people "who lacked faith in their discredited leaders and supported meaningful change.
[21] Even after the end of World War II and the departure of the Allied government of occupation in 1952, Japan has been the target of international criticism for failing to admit to war crimes, institutional religious discrimination and maintaining a weak freedom of the press, the treatment of children, minorities, foreigners, and women, its punitive criminal justice system, and more recently, the systematic bias against LGBT people.
So, the short and deliberately gradual history of struggles for personal rights and protection against government/society's impositions has yet to transform Japan into a champion of universal and individual freedom.
[26][27][28] According to constitutional scholar, Shigenori Matsui, People tend to view the Bill of Rights as a moral imperative and not as a judicial norm.
Among several examples, the Diet (bicameral legislature) ratified the International Bill of Human Rights in 1979 and then it passed the Law for Equal Opportunity in Employment for Men and Women in 1985, measures that were heralded as major steps toward a democratic and participatory society.
In 2015, moreover, it reached an agreement with Korea to compensate for abuses related to the so-called "women of comfort" that took place during the Japanese occupation of the peninsula.
Also, the government lists systematic problems with gender biases and the standard reference to sexual preferences for jobs and other functions in society.
[34] Whilst Australia does not have an enshrined Bill of Rights or similar binding legal document, civil liberties are assumed as protected through a series of rules and conventions.
Refugee issues Within the past decade, Australia has experienced increasing contention regarding its treatment of those seeking asylum.
Although Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (1951), successive governments have demonstrated an increasing tightening of borders; particularly against those who seek passage via small water vessels.
Parts of these laws remain in statute today and are supplemented by other legislation and conventions that collectively form the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom.
This was in reference to anti-terrorism laws and in particular the extension to pre-trial detention, that is perceived by many to be an infringement of habeas corpus established in Magna Carta.
[37] Before universal suffrage, this distinction was important, since many people were ineligible to vote but still were considered to have the fundamental freedoms derived from the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The act was passed by Congress to issue a public apology for those of Japanese ancestry who lost their property and liberty due to discriminatory actions by the United States Government during the internment period.
It directed the Attorney General to identify and locate each individual affected by this act and to pay them $20,000 from the civil liberties public education fund.
