The Utopian World Championship

CIVIL LIBERTY – BE IT LOCAL OR GLOBAL – WE NEED IT

By Nishith Gupta

Competition year: 2004
Place: 9
About Nishith Gupta

Summary: show/hide

Summary

Be it the relentless oppression of public rights and opinions in quasi/non-democratic states or under totalitarian regimes, repression of women in old-tradition-bound states, unwarranted interrogation and arrest of law-abiding people based on their ethnicity and/or ill-interpreted intelligence in developed democracies, inexcusable tightening of immigration in pro-immigration states or excessive restraining of mass protestors during international summits and meetings, all fall under two words, long known as the Civil Liberty. For many years, people around the world, not only in no-democracy states but also in partially or fully matured democracy states, seem to think they are being misgoverned and/or mistreated. Virtually, all people agree that governmental power should not be used to interfere with the freedom of speech and conscience. We hear repeated calls for fundamental structural, constitutional and ideological changes. Yet we seem frequently to be involved in quarrels about specific applications of governmental restraints. The trouble starts when we move from generalities to specifics.

Should our governing authority (local, national or international) allow us to believe, say or write anything; assemble and protest anything, any time, in any manner, and in any place we choose? How should our government make sure that all persons are equally entitled to unalienable rights of life and liberty? Should our governments encourage, support, or in anyway assist any particular religion? Should our lawmakers give those accused of crimes or deemed to commit crimes too much or too little protection? What are our rights and responsibilities as a national or global citizen? Briefly put, do our governments have too little or too much authority to regulate our life in anyway?

I will discuss the national and international Civil Liberties in light of our local or global responsibilities. These will include liberties regarding free speech, voting rights, ethnic and gender equality, religion, criminal justice, immigration, rich and poor, gay and lesbian and privacy. The special attention is given to proposals for reform and renewal, as well as the impact, good and bad, of earlier reforms. The gist of this article will be that any governing body has to feel the pressure towards its people to preserve and maximize their cherished liberties while governing effectively.

Next page | Page: 1 of 10 |
Jump to page:

Page 1

1. General Introduction To Civil Liberty

Today no problem is more compelling that that of ensuring all peoples their basic civil rights without discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, national origin, or sex. What should our government and we do to protect civil rights and to extend opportunity for those who have been discriminated against? Such questions have been important for centuries and their magnitude is still reflected in political elections, local or national, and on international podium as in United Nations. Denial of civil liberties not only negates the declarations made by international bodies; most of the times, it is also contrary to the guarantees of many national Constitutions.

Certain liberties are vital to the operation of a responsible government. Long ago, they were called natural rights; today we speak of human rights – but the belief is still the same: the primacy of people over government, and the dignity and worth of each individual. I have tried to review some these rights, everyone deserves. Many of these are interrelated and there is no good way to depict them discretely. However, my endeavor is to look at each of these liberties from its own point of view.

2. Principle Civil Liberties, People Largely Agree On

2.1 Free Speech And Opinion

Elections and constitutional guarantees would be meaningless unless all have rights to speak frankly and to hear and judge for them the worth of what others have to say. Government by the people is based on every person’s right to speak freely, to organize in groups, to question the decisions of the government, and to campaign openly against it. Only through free and uncensored expression of opinion can a government be kept responsive to the people.

Believers in egalitarianism insist on vigorous debate and the unlimited exchange of ideas because they are convinced that no group has a monopoly on truth. To create such an environment, in the field of politics no group should have the right to establish absolute standards of what is true and what is false. As justice Holmes wrote: “The best of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Despite the fundamental value of free speech in a representative democracy, some people believe that speech should be free only for those who agree with them. Once we move to the level of specific questions or conflicts, there is a discouragingly low level of support for free speech. Many ask why evil or ignorant persons should be permitted to spread lies and confuse others? Why should a person be allowed to utter dangerous ideas that stir up trouble among the people or subvert our society. Free speech is not simply the personal right of individuals to have their say; it is also the right of rest of us to hear them. John Stuart Mill, whose Essay on Liberty is the classic defense of free speech, put is this way: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion, is that it is robbing the human race…If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clear perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”