Rights Of Other Citizens Research Articles

ПРАВОВІ ЗАСАДИ ОРГАНІЗАЦІЇ ПРАЦІ ОСІБ, ЯКІ УТРИМУЮТЬСЯ В УСТАНОВАХ ВИКОНАННЯ ПОКАРАНЬ

Ukraine as a democratic, legal social state on the path to European integration, needs to reform all sectors of society. Particular attention in the transformation process is paid to the penitentiary system. The rights of persons who have committed a criminal offense and are held in penitentiary institutions (hereinafter – PIs), along with the rights of other citizens, are protected by the Constitution of Ukraine and international human rights law. Among the fundamental human rights is the right to work. In its turn, the work that convicted persons are involved in is a necessary component of achieving the goal of serving a sentence – the correction of a person and his or her resocialization. Labor is a significant factor in human life. It is a volitional activity aimed at creating material values. Labor as a means of correction and resocialization of a convicted person is defined by the provisions of Article 6 of the Criminal and Executive Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CEC). The conscientious performance of their labor duties is taken into account when applying for conditional early release of a convicted person. Therefore, socially useful labor, which convicted persons are involved in, helps to reduce crime. Given the reforms that the penitentiary system in Ukraine has undergone, legal regulation of the organization of work of persons held in PIs is an actual issue of the day. The article highlights the legal basis for organizing labor of persons held in penitentiary institutions. The essence of the constitutional right of a convicted person to work is considered. Labor is defined as a means of correction and resocialization of a convict. The legal basis of socially useful work of convicts is analyzed. The functions of socially useful activities of convicted persons are defined. The principles of involving convicts in socially useful work are defined. The author establishes the working conditions for those convicted to restraint of liberty. The author analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine in terms of the obligation to involve convicted persons in labor; the list of jobs and positions in which it is prohibited to use convicts; requirements for remuneration, working week, and salary; involvement in labor on a free basis; and pension provision for convicted persons. The author draws conclusions about the need for further reform of the penitentiary system in terms of ensuring that convicts have the right to engage in labor activity in accordance with their abilities, desire and fair remuneration. Key words: labor, work of convicts, labor activity, labor contract, penitentiary institution, socially useful work, labor functions, working conditions, involvement in work, remuneration, penitentiary system in Ukraine, European integration.

Politik Hukum Pidana Dalam Penegakkan Undang-Undang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik (ITE)

Seeing the rapid development of technology in the digital world, relations between the global community cannot be limited, then the government needs to make a legislation to regulate the procedures and how to use social media properly, in order to protect the rights of other citizens as well. we are familiar with the ITE Law. This study aims to find out how the influence and role of legal politics in enforcing the ITE Law in Indonesia. The research method used is normative research, by analyzing Law number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. The results of the study indicate that in the enforcement of the ITE Law, legal politics has a large role because it is related to the existence of political will in the enforcement of the Aquo Law in which there is a very large structure related to legal politics.

The realization of the right to freedom of speech on the Internet

The expression of opinions on the Internet has a number of features in comparison with traditional means of information dissemination. Firstly, imposition of classical measures of legal liability can be difficult due to the peculiarities of cyber space: anonymity and erasure of jurisdictional boundaries. In this regard, a new mechanism of restrictions has appeared, which consists in the withdrawal of information that violates the law or the rights of other citizens from the Internet at the direction of state bodies. The trends in this area are the predominance of the administrative procedure for making decisions on the withdrawal of information from public access, and the use of vague and evaluative terms as grounds for restrictions. Secondly, in most cases, in the process of realizing freedom of speech, intermediaries are involved — companies that provide a public forum for millions of users. The activities of these companies are also associated with new mechanisms for restricting freedom of speech: from blocking content to deleting users’ accounts. Such companies have a dual responsibility: to monitor the placement of content in order to prevent abuse of freedom of speech and to prevent violations of freedom of expression with their own corporate rules. The purpose of this article is to identify, through the method of analytical jurisprudence, the problems that arise when restricting freedom of speech, implemented in the digital environment, and to establish the reasons for their occurrence. To do this, the author has carried out a review of Russian legislation and the practice of its application, as well as the practice of restrictions, applied by corporations, and an analysis of foreign literature.

Conscience Wars in the Americas

A new type of religious conscience claim is appearing across the globe — in conflicts over sexuality, gender, reproduction, and the family, or what are often described as the “culture wars.” In the United States, many European countries, and parts of Latin America, conscience has emerged as an important framework for objecting to recently enacted laws or case law that confer on citizens reproductive rights and, increasingly, LGBT (or SOGIE) rights. Religious conscience claims in this setting can be asserted sincerely and with a theological basis and yet also serve as a way to limit the newly recognized rights of other citizens. Unlike in the paradigmatic scene of religious accommodation, conscience claims in the culture wars are asserted in defense of norms that the majority recently has shared and may in fact continue to share. Unlike in the paradigmatic case, where an individual from a minority faith seeks to engage in ritual observance or religiously-motivated dress or grooming that runs afoul of generally applicable laws, accommodation of conscience claims in culture-war conflicts may inflict significant harms on other citizens. Accommodation may impose older, traditional views on citizens whose rights the law only recently has come to protect. Our intervention is both practical and critical. We consider culture-war conscience claims across the Americas involving reproductive rights and LGBT equality and show how these more recent conscience claims resemble, and differ from, paradigmatic conscience claims involving ritual observance and dress. After surveying law across borders, we offer guidance about accommodating these conscience claims. We suggest a variety of approaches that would promote, rather than undermine, pluralism. It is often possible for the government to accommodate conscientious objectors’ claims while still protecting the rights of citizens who may be affected. Appreciating the multiple pathways for accommodation helps clarify the logic of the government’s choices. When government accommodates conscience in a framework that does not preserve the legally enshrined rights of other citizens, we show in this Essay, the government may be employing the law of accommodation to create a de facto public order favoring the beliefs of the objectors.

From Piggie Park v. Newman to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Application of the Outward Facing Actions Test to LGBTQ Nondiscrimination Provisions

For over a century courts have embraced a framework distinguishing the behavior of religious organizations on the basis of whether the actions are inward or outward facing. This standard safeguards the rights of organizations to develop and enforce their religious tenets among their members and engage in self government without unconstitutional government intrusion. However, courts have also been clear that the rights of religious organizations to engage in actions that impact members of the general public and non members are not unlimited. As a federal court held in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, the right to believe is not “absolute” and can not be practiced in “utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” As the legal rights of LGBTQ people become more cemented, it is imperative that courts remain faithful to this well established standard and recognize the rights of LGBTQ people in a way that is consistent with this nation’s civil rights jurisprudence.

Conscientious objection to intentional killing: an argument for toleration

BackgroundIn the debate on conscientious objection in healthcare, proponents of conscience rights often point to the imperative to protect the health professional’s moral integrity. Their opponents hold that the moral integrity argument alone can at most justify accommodation of conscientious objectors as a “moral courtesy”, as the argument is insufficient to establish a general moral right to accommodation, let alone a legal right.Main textThis text draws on political philosophy in order to argue for a legal right to accommodation. The moral integrity arguments should be supplemented by the requirement to protect minority rights in liberal democracies. Citizens have a right to live in accordance with their fundamental moral convictions, and a right to equal access to employment. However, this right should not be unconditional, as that would unduly infringe on the rights of other citizens. The right must be limited to cases where the moral basis is more fundamental in a sense that all reasonable citizens in a liberal democracy should accept, such as the constitutive role of the inviolability of human life in liberal democracies.ConclusionThere should be a legal, yet circumscribed, right to accommodation for conscientious objectors refusing to provide healthcare services that they reasonably consider to involve the intentional killing of a human being.

Hacia el espacio público de calidad: una mirada desde de Barranquilla

Abstract: Barranquilla in the search of its Re-conceptualization as integral city and in bet to the improvement of its urban infrastructure, has proposed to promote the potential that represent the public scenarios in the daily life of the citizens, dynamic elements such as parks and squares, are taken as fundamental pieces for the study, analysis and critique of its functionality as structuring entity of urbanism in this article. Achieving in this way a comparison between the quantity, quality and efficiency of the public spaces that the city possesses, taking into account characteristics of its state, appreciation and importance that it represents for the population and the impact of this element in the urban environment. Obtaining as a result of this, subjective and objective aspects that allow a complete evaluation, a systemic approach of the concept of public space. The variants found when analyzing the public space in the city depend on its location or context, area, components and population or area of ​​influence that is benefited with it, this puts in a dilemma of how to really be objective when comparing the samples, on what criteria can be based to achieve a conception of an efficient public space, but at the same time governed by the needs and requirements of those who inhabit it, which is conceived as all that space or exterior area that is public interest; of all and for all, where you can be free to do what you want but respecting the rights of other citizens. KEY WORDS: Public space, quality, efficiency, social integration, dynamic agent.

Orthodox Church in the Legal Field of Modern Ukraine

The legislator in the Constitution of Ukraine states that the Church and religious organizations in Ukraine are separated from the state. In Ukraine the relations between the Church and the state begins with the procedure for registering Church units – e.g. parishes and dioceses – of which the visible structure of the Church organism actually forms. The state does not interfere with the activities of religious organizations, if they do not violate the current legislation, do not encroach on life, health, dignity of a person, as well as the rights of other citizens and organizations.

PLURALISME DEMOKRASI POLITIK DI INDONESIA

In defining citizenship, we need an pre-position that places everything in an equal position. This means that politics must be able to bridge the citizen's equal behavior. Under these circumstances, the possibility of political life becomes the key for understanding everyday political events. This paper discussing how citizens should struggle in politics in Indonesia to achieve equality for these citizenship. Modern democracy which requires general rationality becomes the problem that arises when the general rationality is transformed into a hegemonic that injures the rights of other citizens. The unique political life of the citizens is reduced by the common sense of rationality, At least this paper cultivates the exclusion behavior of citizens in daily life.

Collective Agreement for Members of Slovenian Armed Forces: Reflections on Features of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector for the Military Profession

In the Republic of Slovenia, the military is an organization that, like elsewhere in the European Union (EU), belongs to the public sector. The military service is a part of the public service sector and treated with a single collective agreement for the public sector. Despite certain theses (Janowitz 1977, Moskos 1986, Callaghan and Kernic 2003, Garb 2008) about the growing similarity of the military profession with professions in the public sector or other civilian occupations, work in the military is unique because of the specific role of the military in society. However, the military profession has sufficient similarities with other public sector professions in peacetime circumstances, so that soldiers should be granted the right to bargain the economic conditions of their employment. Through the process of collective bargaining, either within the public sector or individually, they could ensure compensation for the restrictions and requirements contained in the work of soldiers. The most important European institutions, in terms of safety and protection of the rights in the European region, are following the trend of changes in the security environment, new tasks of the military organization, the changed nature of the military profession in the postmodern era, and defend the concept of the “citizen in uniform”. Through resolutions, recommendations and memorandums, they are following the trend of increasing demands for the equalization of the rights of soldiers with the rights of other citizens. In particular, the right of unions to organize and the right for the possibilities to negotiate conditions of employment are emphasized. In the EU, there are two approaches regarding the possibility of bargaining on the economic conditions of employment for soldiers. Both provide the possibility of obtaining a special allowance for soldiers serving the country.

'Linguistic Cleansing': Strategies for Redesigning Human Perception and Behavior

James Madison recognized the need to balance competing interests in his analysis of factious groups. In Federalist No. 10, Madison sets out the idea of faction in the following words. “By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Madison goes on to describe two “cures” for faction. One is to “destroy the liberty” that allows it to bloom, the other is to give “to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” The idea is that free speech serves to protect and enrich the social community. This presumably occurs through the education of participants, and the venting of potentially explosive internal hostilities. America is failing on both fronts.I am not in favor of vile, malicious or “nasty” speech but am opposed to the use of the formal or discretionary power of law and government to intimidate and punish anyone who voices a view that a favored identity group considers inappropriate, mean-spirited, offensive or the like. This opposition to “linguistic cleansing” includes antagonism toward what can be described as the “privatization” of speech control through large-scale collective organization on the Internet and its associated applications. That phenomenon has swept over us with such speed and force that it should not simply be thought of as “private” action in some instances but might even be considered an added component of governmental action when left unregulated. Granting “sensitive” and “hyper-sensitive” identity groups the power of government in ways that allow them the ability to define and determine what “insults” or “offends” them is an unwise delegation of the massive instrumentality of law and its accompanying threat of force or other harmful consequences. This delegation not only grants defensive power but provides an offensive weapon that can be used to acquire power. And of course that power is the “Holy Grail” of political activism. But such unbalanced use of public power creates divisiveness, tribalism and social aggressiveness. On the scale this is now occurring it destroys the ability of individuals to trust and compromise. Little wonder that American society has devolved to its current state or that the strategies to rely on accusations of “hate”, “insult”, and “insensitivity” have in many ways produced a society in which hate has intensified, insult is everywhere, and insensitivity and discourtesy abounds.

Government Has No “Religious Agency”: James Madison's Fundamental Principle of Religious Liberty

Religious liberty has reemerged as a problem in liberal democracy. For guidance we can turn to James Madison. Unfortunately, his fundamental principle of religious liberty has been misunderstood. Madison believed that power over religious conscience always remains with the individual, which means that government never has a power to attempt to cause or prohibit religious opinions or profession and only has the power to prohibit religious practices that are “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Madison's fundamental principle of religious liberty is therefore that government has no “religious agency.” In matters of religious establishment, “no agency” means that government lacks even the power to cognize religious opinions or practices. But in matters of free exercise, “no agency” means that government can accommodate citizens’ religious consciences, even if that accommodation requires cognizing their religious opinions. An important but widely overlooked example of Madison's complex but principled approach to religious liberty is his 1790 proposal for a statutory exemption from federal militia service for religious objectors.

Radical Evil in the Lockean State: The Neglect of the Political Emotions

AbstractAll modern liberal democracies have strong reasons to support an idea of toleration, understood as involving respect, not only grudging acceptance, and to extend it to all religious and secular doctrines, limiting only conduct that violates the rights of other citizens. There is no modern democracy, however, in which toleration of this sort is a stable achievement. Why is toleration, attractive in principle, so difficult to achieve? The normative case for toleration was well articulated by John Locke in his influential A Letter Concerning Toleration , although his attractive proposal thus rests on a fragile foundation. Kant did much more, combining a Lockean account of the state with a profound diagnosis of ‘radical evil’, the tendencies in all human beings to militate against stable toleration and respect. But Kant proposed no mechanism through which the state might mitigate the harmful influence of ‘radical evil’, thus rendering toleration stable. One solution to this problem was proposed by Rousseau, but it has deep problems. How, then, can a respectful pluralistic society shore up the fragile human basis of toleration, especially in a world in which we need to cultivate toleration not only within each state, but also among peoples and states, in this interlocking world?

Technology and liberty: Enriching the conversation

Technological advance has long held a privileged position in the United States under a series of regimes of crisis (e.g. World War II, the Cold War, the “crisis” of global competitiveness). Framed in terms of putative (mostly market surrogate) majorities, with “cost effective” advances commonly restrained only when they would pose an undue risk to life or limb, new developments in technology have, as a result, been little examined for their impacts on the rights and freedoms intended to be guaranteed under our Constitutional tradition. This paper outlines several ways in which the advance of technology could be seen to infringe upon traditional rights and liberties. Specific arguments are constructed from human dignity as a basis for human rights, from Constitutional freedoms of religion and of expression, and from Ninth Amendment guarantees of liberty. Presented in a brief and preliminary form without detailed attention to all of their possible implications, these arguments may, in isolation, be unconvincing for many readers. Collectively, however, they are indicative of possible intrusions by the advance of science and technology into protected areas of individual rights. As such, they suggest a need to move beyond majoritarian standards to a much richer political conversation, balancing the property and other rights of inventors and developers of new science and technology against the sometimes conflicting rights of other citizens.