English Bill of Rights
December 16, 1689
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors,
judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the
protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.
1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and
the execution of laws, without consent of parliament.
2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be
excused from concurring to the said assumed power.
3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting
a court called, The court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes.
4. By levying money for and to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for
other time, and in other manner, than the same was granted by parliament.
5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without
consent of parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
6. By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time
when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.
7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament.
8. By prosecutions in the court of King's bench, for matters and causes cognizable only
in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.
9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been
returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high
treason, which were not freeholders.
10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to
elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments have
been inflicted.
12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction
or judgment against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom
of this realm.
And whereas the said late king James the Second having abdicated the government, and
the throne being thereby vacant ... the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons ...
do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating
and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;
1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal
authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal
authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
3. That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical
causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious.
4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without
grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be
granted, is illegal.
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all committments [sic] and
prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace,
unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.
7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to
their conditions, and as allowed by law.
8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be
impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon
men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before
conviction, are illegal and void.
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and
preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently.
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their
undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or
proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any
wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.
...
VI. Now in pursuance of the premisses, the said lords spiritual and temporal, and
commons, in parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the
said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the
force of a law made in due form by authority of parliament, do pray that it may be
declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed
in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the
people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken
to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden
and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers
whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all
times to come.
...
XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and
established by authority of this present parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the
law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the
advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, and established
accordingly.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove
this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in
their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people
would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable
to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository
of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the
rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the
Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the
State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions
within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat
out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged
by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an
Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of
our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death,
desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country,
to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our
frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of
all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated
Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every
act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of
attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and
magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,
which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice
of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies
are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to
be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent
States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James
Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot
Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
[Constitution for the United States of America][1]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
HISTORY OF THE DOCUMENT
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10
December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war,
and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow
atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN
Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they
considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at
the first session of the General Assembly in 1946. The Assembly reviewed this draft Declaration on
Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council "for
reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its preparation of an
international bill of rights." The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its members
to formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights". Later the work
was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from eight
States, selected with due regard for geographical distribution.
The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political, cultural and
religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired
the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of
the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung
Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who
prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the
Declaration’s adoption.
The Commission met for the first time in 1947. In her memoirs, Eleanor Roosevelt recalled:
“Dr. Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there is more
than one kind of ultimate reality. The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than simply Werstern
ideas and Dr. Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach. His remark, though addressed to
Dr. Humprhey, was really directed at Dr. Malik, from whom it drew a prompt retort as he expounded at
some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Dr. Humphrey joined enthusiastically in the
discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr. Chang suggested that the Secretariat might well
spend a few months studying the fundamentals of Confucianism!”
The final draft by Cassin was handed to the Commission on Human Rights, which was being held in
Geneva. The draft declaration sent out to all UN member States for comments became known as the
Geneva draft.
The first draft of the Declaration was proposed in September 1948 with over 50 Member States
participating in the final drafting. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the General
Assembly, meeting in Paris, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with eight nations
abstaining from the vote but none dissenting. Hernán Santa Cruz of Chile, member of the drafting subCommittee, wrote:
“I perceived clearly that I was participating in a truly significant historic event in which a consensus
had been reached as to the supreme value of the human person, a value that did not originate in the
decision of a worldly power, but rather in the fact of existing—which gave rise to the inalienable right
to live free from want and oppression and to fully develop one’s personality. In the Great Hall…there
was an atmosphere of genuine solidarity and brotherhood among men and women from all latitudes,
the like of which I have not seen again in any international setting.”
The entire text of the UDHR was composed in less than two years. At a time when the world was
divided into Eastern and Western blocks, finding a common ground on what should make the essence
of the document proved to be a colossal task.
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion
against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women
and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations,
thepromotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the
full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTSas a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that
every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive
measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of
territories under their jurisdiction.
^ Top
Article 1.
•All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
^ Top
Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be
made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.
^ Top
Article 3.
•Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
^ Top
Article 4.
•No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in
all their forms.
^ Top
Article 5.
•No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
^ Top
Article 6.
•Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
^ Top
Article 7.
•All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
^ Top
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
•Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
^ Top
Article 9.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
^ Top
Article 10.
•Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him.
^ Top
Article 11.
•(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his
defence.
•(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which
did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was
committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time
the penal offence was committed.
^ Top
Article 12.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
^ Top
Article 13.
•(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each
state.
•(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
country.
^ Top
Article 14.
•(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
•(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from nonpolitical crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
^ Top
Article 15.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
•(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
^ Top
nationality.
Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have
the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage,
during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.
^ Top
Article 17.
•(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
•(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
^ Top
Article 18.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.
^ Top
Article 19.
•Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
^ Top
Article 20.
•(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
•(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
^ Top
Article 21.
•(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
•(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
•(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and
shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
^ Top
Article 22.
•Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to
realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the
organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
^ Top
Article 23.
•(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
•(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
•(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other
means of social protection.
•(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
^ Top
Article 24.
•Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.
^ Top
Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
•(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether
born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
^ Top
Article 26.
•(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional
education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.
•(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
•(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their
children.
^ Top
Article 27.
•(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy
the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
•(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from
any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
^ Top
Article 28.
•Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set
^ Top
forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
•(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.
•(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
•(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
^ Top
Article 30.
•Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
rights and freedoms set forth herein.
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of
law:
GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Rights and freedoms in Canada
M
a
1. The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it
subject onlyr to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free
g
and democratic
society.
i
n
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
a
l
Fundamental freedoms
M
n
a has the following fundamental freedoms:
2. Everyoneo
tr
•(a) freedom
eg of conscience and religion;
•(b) freedom
i: of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other
media of communication;
n
•(c) freedom
a of peaceful assembly; and
•(d) freedom
l of association.
n
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
o
t
Democratic
rights of citizens
eM
:a
3. Every citizen
of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of
r of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Commons or
g
i
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
n
M
aa
•4. (1) No House
of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five
l
years from rthe date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (81)
g
n
i
o
n
ta
el
:
n
M
• Continuation
in special circumstances
a
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion
or insurrection, a House of Commons may be
r
continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly
may be continued by the legislature beyond
g by the votes of more than one-third of the members
five years if such continuation is not opposed
i assembly, as the case may be. (82)
of the House of Commons or the legislative
n
a
M
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
l
a
5. There shall
be
a
sitting
of
Parliament
and
of each legislature at least once every twelve
r
months. (83)
n
g
o
i
t
n
e MOBILITY RIGHTS
a
:
l
Mobility of citizens
M
n
a citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
•6. (1) Every
o
r
M
• Rights
to move and gain livelihood
tg
a
(2) Every citizen
of
Canada
and
every
person
who
has the status of a permanent resident of
e
r
Canada hasi: the right
n to and take up residence in any
g province; and
•(a) to move
a
i any province.
•(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in
l
n
M
• Limitation
aa subject to
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are
n
lr
•(a) any laws or practices of general application
in force in a province other than those that
o
g basis of province of present or previous residence;
discriminatet among persons primarily on the
n
i
and
e
o
n
•(b) any laws
requirements as a qualification for the receipt of
: providing for reasonable residency
ta
publicly provided social services.
el
M
• Affirmative
action programs
:
a any law, program or activity that has as its object the
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude
n
amelioration in a province of conditions of rindividuals in that province who are socially or
o
g
economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment
in that province is below the rate of
ti
employment in Canada.
en
:a
LEGAL RIGHTS
l
M
M
liberty and security of person
n
aLife,
a
o
rr
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
t
g
g
deprived thereof
except in accordance withe the principles of fundamental justice.
ii
n
:
n
aaSearch or seizure
ll
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
n
M
n
o
aDetention or imprisonment
o
trt
9. Everyoneeeg has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
::i
n
Arrest or detention
M
a
al has the right on arrest or detention
10. Everyone
r
•(a) to be informed
promptly of the reasons therefor;
g
n
•(b) to retain
and
instruct
counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
i
o
tn
ea
l:
n
o
•(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpusand to be released if
the detention is not lawful.
M
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
a
11. Any person
charged with an offence has the right
r
g
•(a) to be informed
without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
i
•(b) to be tried
within a reasonable time;
n compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the
•(c) not to be
a
offence;
l
•(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by
an independent and impartial tribunal;
n
•(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
o
•(f) except in
t the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the
benefit of trial
e by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five
years or a more
severe punishment;
:
•(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or
omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according
to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
•(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and
punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
•(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between
the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
M
Treatment or punishment
a
12. Everyone
r has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment.
g
i
n
Self-crimination
M
a
al who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating
13. A witness
evidence sor given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a
prosecutiong
nfor perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
io
n
t
Interpreter
ae
M
l
14. A partya: or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in
r
which the proceedings
are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an
n
interpreter.g
M
o
i
atn
rea
EQUALITY RIGHTS
g
:l
i
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
n
n
ao
•15. (1) Every
individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal
lt
protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without
e based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
discrimination
n
:
physical disability.
o
M
• Affirmative
action programs
t
a
(2) Subsection
(1) does not preclude any law,
program or activity that has as its object the
e
r individuals or groups including those that are
amelioration: of conditions of disadvantaged
disadvantaged because of race, national org ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
i
physical disability. (84)
n
a
l
n
o
t
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF CANADA
Official languages of Canada
M
a
•16. (1) English
and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and
equal rightsr and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of
g
Canada.
i
M
• Official
languages of New Brunswick
a
(2) English nand French are the official languages
of New Brunswick and have equality of status
a
and equal rights
and privileges as to their ruse in all institutions of the legislature and government
l
g
of New Brunswick.
i
M
• Advancement
of status and use
n
an
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority
of Parliament or a legislature to advance the
o
ar
equality of status
or use of English and French.
t
lg
e
i
M
in New Brunswick
:English and French linguistic communities
n
n
a
•16.1 (1) The
a and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick
r English linguistic communityo
have equality
of
status
and
equal
rights
and
lt privileges, including the right to distinct educational
g
e
institutions iand such distinct cultural institutions
as are necessary for the preservation and
:
promotion of
those
communities.
n
n
o
M
• Role
of the legislature and government of
a
at
New
Brunswick
l
re
(2) The role of the legislature and government
of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the
:subsection (1) is affirmed.(85)
n and privileges referred to in g
status, rights
i
o
n
tProceedings of Parliament
M
a
ae
•17. (1) Everyone
has
the
right
to
use
English
or French in any debates and other proceedings of
l
r:
Parliament.g(86)
M
• Proceedings
n
of New Brunswick legislature
i
a
o
(2) Everyone
has
the
right
to
use
English
or
French
in
any
debates and other proceedings of the
n
rt
legislature of
a New Brunswick. (87)
g
e
l
i:
M
Parliamentary statutes and records
n
an
•18. (1) The
statutes,
records
and
journals
a of Parliament shall be printed and published in English
ro
and French g
and
both
language
versions
are
l equally authoritative.(88)
t
M
• New
Brunswick statutes and records
ie
a
(2) The statutes,
records
and
journals
of
the
n
legislature
of New Brunswick shall be printed and
n
:
ro
published ina English and French and both language
versions are equally authoritative. (89)
g
t
l
ie by Parliament
M
Proceedings
in courts established
M
M
n
:a
an
a
•19. (1) Either
English or French may be used
by any person in, or in any pleading in or process
a
rro
r
issuing from,
any
court
established
by
Parliament.
(90)
l
g
t
g
g
•
Proceedings
in New Brunswick courts
iei
i
n
(2) Either English
or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process
n
:n
n
issuing from,
aa any court of New Brunswick.o
a(91)
t
ll
l
Communications by public withe federal institutions
:
n
n
n member of the public in Canada
•20. (1) Any
has the right to communicate with, and to receive
o
o office of an institution of the Parliament or
o
available services
from,
any
head
or
central
t
t and has the same right with respect to any other
governmentte of Canada in English or French,
e
e
office of any: such institution where
:
:
•(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such
language; or
•(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from
that office be available in both English and French.
M
• Communications
by public with New Brunswick
a
institutions
r
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick
has the right to communicate with, and to receive
g
available services from, any office of an institution
of the legislature or government of New
i
Brunswick in English or French.
n
a
M
Continuation of existing constitutional
provisions
l
a
21. Nothingr in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation
with respectg to the English and French languages,
n
or either of them, that exists or is continued by
o
virtue of any
other
provision
of
the
Constitution
of
Canada. (92)
i
t
n
aRights and privileges preservede
:
M
l
22. Nothinga in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or
rn
privilege acquired
or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with
g
o language that is not English or French.
respect to any
it
n
e
MINORITY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS
a:
l
Language of instruction
M
n
ao
•23. (1) Citizens
of Canada
•(a) whose rtfirst language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic
g
e
minority population
of the province in which they reside, or
i:
•(b) who have
received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside
n where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the
in a province
a
English or French
linguistic minority population of the province,
l
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that
language in that province. (93)
n
M
• Continuity
of language instruction
o
a
(2) Citizenst of Canada of whom any child has
received or is receiving primary or secondary school
r
instruction in
e English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary
g language.
and secondary
school
instruction
in
the
same
:
iM
• Application
where numbers warrant
n
a
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections
(1) and (2) to have their children receive
ar the language of the English or French linguistic
primary and secondary school instruction in
lg
minority population of a province
i
•(a) applies wherever in the province the number
of children of citizens who have such a right is
n
sufficient to warrant the provision to themnout of public funds of minority language instruction;
ao
and
M
lt
•(b) includes,
so warrants, the right to have them receive that
a where the number of those children
e
instruction in
r minority language educational
:n facilities provided out of public funds.
g
o
ENFORCEMENT
i
t
n
e
a
:
Enforcement
of
guaranteed
rights
and freedoms
l
•24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or
denied maynapply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court
o
considers appropriate
and just in the circumstances.
t
e
:
M
• Exclusion
of evidence bringing administration of justice
a
into
disrepute
r (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection
g or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the
a manner that infringed or denied any rights
i
evidence shall be excluded if it is established
that, having regard to all the circumstances, the
n
admission of it in the proceedings would bring
the administration of justice into disrepute.
a
l
GENERAL
n
Aboriginal rights and freedomsonot affected by Charter
M
t
a
25. The guarantee
in this Charter of certain
e rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to
abrogate orr derogate from any aboriginal,: treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the
g
aboriginal peoples
of Canada including
i
•(a) any rights
n or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7,
1763; and a
•(b) any rights
or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so
l
acquired. (94)
n
o
t
e
:
…..............
Entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) sets out a list of over two dozen specific human
rights that countries should respect and protect. These specific rights can be divided into
six or more families: security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder,
massacre, torture, and rape; due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal
system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials, and excessive
punishments; liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief, expression,
association, assembly, and movement; political rights that protect the liberty
to participate in politics through actions such as communicating, assembling, protesting,
voting, and serving in public office; equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship,
equality before the law, and nondiscrimination; and social (or “welfare”) rights that
require provision of education to all children and protections against severe poverty and
starvation. Another family that might be included is group rights. The Universal
Declaration does not include group rights, but subsequent treaties do. Group rights
include protections of ethnic groups against genocide and the ownership by countries of
their national territories and resources (see Anaya 2004, Baker 2004, Henrard 2000,
Kymlicka 1989, and Nickel 2006).
In this section I try to explain the general idea of human rights by setting out some
defining features. The goal here is to answer the question of what human rights are with a
general description of the contemporary concept rather than a list of specific rights. Two
people can have the same general idea of human rights even though they disagree about
whether some particular rights are human rights. (For another attempt to characterize the
idea of human rights in light of contemporary human rights practice see Beitz, 14f.)
First, human rights are political norms dealing mainly with how people should be treated
by their governments and institutions. They are not ordinary moral norms applying
mainly to interpersonal conduct (such as prohibitions of lying and violence). As Thomas
Pogge puts it, “to engage human rights, conduct must be in some sense official” (Pogge
2000, 47). But we must be careful here since some rights, such as rights against racial
and sexual discrimination are primarily concerned to regulate private behavior (Okin
1998). Still, governments are directed in two ways by rights against discrimination.
They forbid governments to discriminate in their actions and policies, and they impose
duties on governments to prohibit and discourage both private and public forms of
discrimination.
Second, human rights exist as moral and/or legal rights. A human right can exist as (1) a
shared norm of actual human moralities, (2) a justified moral norm supported by strong
reasons, (3) a legal right at the national level (here it might be referred to as a “civil” or
“constitutional” right), or (4) a legal right within international law. A human rights
advocate might wish to see human rights exist in all four ways. (See Section 2. The Existence of
Human Rights.)
Third, human rights are numerous (several dozen) rather than few. John Locke's rights to
life, liberty, and property were few and abstract (Locke 1689), but human rights as we
know them today address specific problems (e.g., guaranteeing fair trials, ending
slavery, ensuring the availability of education, preventing genocide.) They are the rights
of the lawyers rather than the abstract rights of the philosophers. Human rights protect
people against familiar abuses of people's dignity and fundamental interests. Because
many human rights deal with contemporary problems and institutions they are not
transhistorical. One could formulate human rights abstractly or conditionally to make
them transhistorical, but the fact remains that the formulations in contemporary human
rights documents are neither abstract nor conditional. They presuppose criminal trials,
governments funded by income taxes, and formal systems of education.
Fourth, human rights are minimal—or at least modest—standards. They are much more
concerned with avoiding the terrible than with achieving the best. Their dominant focus
is protecting minimally good lives for all people (Nickel 2006). Henry Shue suggests
that human rights concern the “lower limits on tolerable human conduct” rather than
“great aspirations and exalted ideals” (Shue 1996). As modest standards they leave most
legal and policy matters open to democratic decision-making at the national and local
levels. This allows them to have high priority, to accommodate a great deal of cultural
and institutional variation, and to leave open a large space for democratic decisionmaking at the national level. (For criticism of the view that human rights are minimal
standards see Brems 2009 and Raz 2010.)
Fifth, human rights are international norms covering all countries and all people living
today. International law plays a crucial role in giving human rights global reach. We can
say that human rights are universal provided that we recognize that some rights, such as
the right to vote, are held only by adult citizens; that some human rights documents
focus on vulnerable groups such as children, women, and indigenous peoples.
Sixth, human rights are high-priority norms. Maurice Cranston held that human rights
are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation “a grave affront to justice”
(Cranston 1967). This does not mean, however, that we should take human rights to be
absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as “resistant to
trade-offs, but not too resistant” (Griffin 2001b). The high priority of human rights
needs support from a plausible connection with fundamental human interests or
powerful normative considerations.
Seventh, human rights require robust justifications that apply everywhere and support
their high priority. Without this they cannot withstand cultural diversity and national
sovereignty. Robust justifications are powerful but need not be understood as ones that
are irresistible.
Eighth, human rights are rights, but not necessarily in a strict sense. As rights they have
several features. One is that they have rightholders — a person or agency having a
particular right. Broadly, the rightholders of human rights are all people living today.
Another feature of rights is that they focus on a freedom, protection, status, or benefit for
the rightholders(Brandt 1983, 44). Rights also have addressees who are assigned duties
or responsibilities. A person's human rights are not primarily rights against the United
Nations or other international bodies; they primarily impose obligations on the
government of the country in which the person resides or is located. The human rights of
citizens of Belgium are mainly addressed to the Belgian government. International
agencies, and the governments of countries other than one's own, are secondary or
“backup” addressees. The duties associated with human rights typically require actions
involving respect, protection, facilitation, and provision. Finally, rights are usually
mandatory in the sense of imposing duties on their addressees, but they sometimes do
little more than declare high-priority goals and assign responsibility for their progressive
realization. It is possible to argue, of course, that goal-like rights are not real rights, but
it may be better simply to recognize that they comprise a weaker but useful notion of a
right.
Having set out a general idea of human rights with eight elements, it is useful to
consider three other candidates which I think should be rejected. The first is the claim
that all human rightsare negative rights, in the sense that they only require governments
to refrain from doing things. On this view, human rights never require governments to
take positive steps such as protecting and providing. To refute this claim we do not need
to appeal to social rights that require the provision of things like education and medical
care. It is enough to note that this view is incompatible with the attractive position that
one of the main jobs of governments is to protect people's rights by creating an effective
system of criminal law and of legal property rights. The European Convention on
Human Rights (Council of Europe 1950) incorporates this view when it says that
“Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law” (Article 2.1). And the UN Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Nations 1984)
imposes the requirement that “Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are
offences under its criminal law” (Article 4.1). Providing effective legal protections is
providing services, not merely refraining
A second claim to be rejected or qualified is that all human rights are inalienable. To say
that a right is inalienable means that its holder cannot lose it temporarily or permanently
by bad conduct or by voluntarily giving it up. Inalienability does not mean that rights are
absolute or can never be overridden by other considerations. I doubt that all human
rights are inalienable in this sense. One who endorses both human rights and
imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that people's rights to freedom
of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious
crimes. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that human rights are very hard to lose. (For a
stronger view of inalienability, see Donnelly 2003:10).
Third, I think we should reject John Rawls' proposal in The Law of Peoples that human
rights define where legitimate toleration of other countries ends. Rawls says that human
rights “specify limits to a regime's internal autonomy” and that “their fulfillment is
sufficient to exclude justified and forceful intervention by other peoples, for example, by
diplomatic and economic sanctions, or in grave cases by military force” (Rawls 1999,
79–80).
It is a grave oversimplification to suggest that there is a neat line defined by human
rights where national sovereignty ends and tolerance stops. There is no need to deny that
human rights are helpful in identifying the limits of justifiable toleration, but there are
several reasons to doubt that they simply define that boundary. First, the “fulfillment” of
human rights is a very vague idea. No country fully satisfies human rights; all countries
have significant human rights problems. Some countries have large human rights
problems, and many have massive problems (“gross violations of human rights”).
Beyond this, the responsibility of the current government of a country for these
problems also varies. The main responsibility may belong to the previous government
and the current government may be taking reasonable steps to move towards greater
compliance.
Further, defining human rights as norms that set the bounds of toleration requires
restricting human rights to only a few fundamental rights. Rawls suggests the following
list: “the right to life (to the means of subsistence and security); to liberty (to freedom
from slavery, serfdom, and forced occupation, and to a sufficient measure of liberty of
conscience to ensure freedom of religion and thought); to property (personal property);
and to formal equality as pressed by the rules of natural justice (that is, that similar cases
be treated similarly)” (Rawls 1999, 65). As Rawls recognizes this list leaves out most
freedoms, rights of political participation, equality rights, and social rights. Leaving out
any protection for equality and democracy is a high price to pay for assigning human
rights the role of setting the bounds of tolerance, and we can accommodate Rawls'
underlying idea without paying it. The intuitive idea that Rawls uses is that countries
engaging in massive violations of the most important human rights are not to be
tolerated — particularly when the notion of toleration implies, as Rawls thinks it does,
full and equal membership in good standing in the community of nations. To use this
intuitive idea we do not need to follow Rawls in equating human rights with some
stripped down list of human rights. Instead we can work up a view — which is needed
for other purposes anyway — of which human rights are the weightiest and whether they
can classified into tiers. Large violations of the most fundamental rights can then be
used as grounds for non-tolerance.
…...........
This section discusses the question of which rights belong on lists of human rights. Not
every question of social justice or wise governance is a human rights issue. For example,
a country could have too much income inequality, inadequate provision for higher
education, or no national parks without violating any human rights. Deciding which
norms should be counted as human rights is a matter of some difficulty. And there is
continuing pressure to expand lists of human rights to include new areas. Many political
movements would like to see their main concerns categorized as matters of human
rights, since this would publicize, promote, and legitimize their concerns at the
international level. A possible result of this is “human rights inflation,” the devaluation
of human rights caused by producing too much bad human rights currency (See
Cranston 1973, Orend 2002, Wellman 1999, Griffin 2010).
One way to avoid rights inflation is to follow Cranston in insisting that human rights
only deal with extremely important goods, protections, and freedoms. A supplementary
approach is to impose several justificatory tests for specific human rights. For example,
it could be required that a proposed human right not only deal with some very important
good but also respond to a common and serious threat to that good, impose burdens on
the addressees that are justifiable and no larger than necessary, and be feasible in most
of the world's countries (see Nickel 2006). This approach restrains rights inflation with
several tests, not just one master test.
Human rights are specific and problem-oriented (Dershowitz 2004, Donnelly 2003, Shue
1996, Talbott 2005). Historic bills of rights often begin with a list of complaints about
the abuses of previous regimes or eras. Bills of rights may have preambles that speak
grandly and abstractly of life, liberty, and the inherent dignity of persons, but their lists
of rights contain specific norms addressed to familiar political, legal, or economic
problems.
In deciding which specific rights are human rights it is possible to make either too little
or too much of international documents such as the Universal Declaration and the
European Convention. One makes too little of them by proceeding as if drawing up a list
of important rights were a new question, never before addressed, and as if there were no
practical wisdom to be found in the choices of rights that went into the historic
documents. And one makes too much of them by presuming that those documents tell us
everything we need to know about human rights. This approach involves a kind of
fundamentalism: it holds that if a right is on the official lists of human rights that settles
its status as a human right (“If it's in the book that's all I need to know.”) But the process
of listing human rights in the United Nations and elsewhere was a political process with
plenty of imperfections. There is little reason to take international diplomats as the most
authoritative guides to which human rights there are. Further, even if a treaty could settle
the issue of whether a certain right is a human right within international law, such a
treaty cannot settle its weight. It may claim that the right is supported by weighty
considerations, but it cannot make this so. If an international treaty enacted a right to
visit national parks without charge as a human right, the ratification of that treaty would
make free access to national parks a “human right” within international law. But it
would not be able to make us believe that the right to visit national parks without charge
was sufficiently important to be a real human right.
Once one takes seriously the question of whether some norms that are now counted as
human rights do not merit that status and whether some norms that are not currently
accepted as human rights should be upgraded, there are many possible ways to proceed.
One approach that should be avoided puts a lot of weight on whether the norm in
question really is, or could be, a right in a strict sense. This approach might yield
arguments that human rights cannot include children's rights since young children
cannot exercise their rights by invoking, claiming, or waiving (Hart 1955, Wellman
1995). This approach begs the question of whether human rights are rights in a strict
sense rather than a fairly loose one. The human rights movement and its purposes are not
well served by being forced into a narrow conceptual framework. The most basic idea of
the human rights movement is not that of a right, but the idea of regulating the behavior
of governments through international norms. And when we look at human rights
documents we find that they use a variety of normative concepts. Sometimes they speak
of rights, as when the Universal Declaration says that “Everyone has the right to
freedom of movement” (Article 13). Sometimes these documents issue prohibitions, as
when the Universal Declaration says that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention, or exile” (Article 9). And at other times they express general principles, as
illustrated by the Universal Declaration's claim that “All are equal before the law”
(Article 7).
A better way to evaluate a norm that is nominated for the status of human right is to
consider whether it is compatible with the general idea of human rights that we find in
international human rights documents. If the general idea of human rights suggested
above is correct, it requires affirmative answers to questions such as whether this norm
could have governments as its primary addressees, whether it ensures that people can
have minimally good lives, whether it has high priority, and whether it can be supported
by strong reasons that make plausible its universality and high priority.