# Human Rights in Other Countries? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2021, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473 "2021-09-27T23:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2021, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/21 "2021-09-29T20:43:53Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > It is demonstrated by this things like this would not stand up to constitutional review by a judge in US, regardless of the political leanings of the judge invovled: Your three examples are all suggested laws that have not passed yet, and although it is possible some of them will be (or already have since the articles are old) passed through the system, they are still likely to be challenged as against national and international human rights provisions. I don’t see how this shows the US bill of rights is better at preventing rights abuse unless you want to ignore similarly outrageous laws in the US that have passed all the way through state legislatures, or you are unaware that European countries also have mechanisms to challenge laws after they have been passed. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2021, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/22 "2021-09-29T21:27:07Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Your three examples are all suggested laws that have not passed yet, and although it is possible some of them will be (or already have since the articles are old) passed through the system, they are still likely to be challenged as against national and international human rights provisions. The burqa ban is a done deal (the one described in that article was just the latest of several in various European countries), its clear concrete example of why a small unambiguous bill of rights is better at protecting rights such as the right to free practice of religion. The laws have been passed, brought before the [European court of human rights](https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/21/the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-face-veil-bans/), and passed as a-OK not violating anyone’s rights. If you can pass a law banning wearing specific religious garments, then you don’t have meaningful religious freedom (any more than if you passed a law forcing women to wear specific religious garments). That would not happen in the US, there are plenty of bigoted people who would love to pass such a law (the last president for example) but no US judge of any political affiliation would let it stand. All those examples were just stuff that had come up on my newsfeed recently, those UK laws will pass, and no one expects meaningful push back from judiciary despite clearly infringing basic civil liberties. The bill of rights is not a panacea that automatically makes the US completely free of injustice of any kind, but its is clearly superior at protecting civil rights than the alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![keeganst94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@keeganst94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeganst94)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/23 "2021-09-30T00:20:54Z")
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only difference is that in America all of those clauses are considered to be implied and are decided by the courts. The plain text may say that the government “shall not” do this or that, but the plain reading of the text is incorrect. For example, “The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Except you can’t perform human sacrifices (even on fully willing participants), you can’t be polygamous, you can’t claim that your religion requires public nudity, or the commission of crimes, etc. The Supreme Court in the US decided that the government in fact could make law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, provided that it had a compelling interest to do so and met strict scrutiny. All of those “weasel words” that the UK act has are also true of the US bill of rights, it’s just not explicit. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/24 "2021-09-30T00:55:43Z")
What keeganst94 said. “Congress shall make no law abridging . . .” may look hard to circumvent, but in fact there are numerous laws which restrict freedom of speech in the US - copyright, confidentiality, privacy, defamation, consumer information, product labelling, trademarks, plagiarism, professional standards . . . the list is almost endless. As in Europe, in the US it’s the courts which work out which restrictions on freedom of speech are constitutionally permissible, having regard to other constitutional rights and other considerations relevant to the common good. The difference is that the more modern human rights instruments acknowledge the need for these balances to be struck; earlier ones, like the US Bill of Rights, may be more simply worded but it is perhaps a deceptive simplicity. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/25 "2021-09-30T07:56:35Z")
I’m a little unclear what “human rights” means in the context in which the OP and others have provided commentary. It seems to me to be a mixture of human rights and constitutional rights. Legally speaking, these are two different areas: one covered by legislation, and one not. To me (a Canadian lawyer, who deals with human rights in the administrative law area, before Human Rights tribunals and commissions), there are two kinds of rights: _human rights_, which basically state that one cannot be discriminated against, or be provided differential treatment, by private or government parties, on the basis of a protected ground–for example, race, religion, ancestry, family status, gender, and so on. In some jurisdictions, gender identity and sexual orientation are protected also. These tend to be covered by state/provincial, and federal legislation, not constitutions. Then there are _constitutional rights_, which are in the Constitution (US Bill of Rights or Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or similar documents elsewhere). Neither of these documents address discrimination on the basis of a protected ground–the closest Canada comes is Charter s. 15, which states that everyone is equal before the law. Anyway, these documents address legal rights (e.g. the right to remain silent), democratic rights (e.g. citizens’ right to vote is guaranteed), and various freedoms (e.g. freedom of speech). These rights, being part of constitutions, cannot be superseded by legislation. So can we clarify what this thread is about? Is it _human rights_, as in discrimination; or is it _constitutional rights_, as in freedom of assembly or the right to have police search without a warrant? ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/26 "2021-09-30T09:02:22Z")
Terminology can be a bit loose, and varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction. Mostly, there is considerable overlap between the various terms that are used. If Canadian usage sees human rights and constitutional rights as exclusive categories, I suspect that’s not typical of usage in other jurisdictions. “Human rights” suggest fundamental rights which inhere in you simply because of your status as a human being (as opposed to, e.g., rights that arise under contract, or that are benevolently granted to you by a king or by a legislature). An alternative term is “personal rights”; rights you have by virtue of your status as a human person. “Constitutional rights” are rights that are recognised or protected in a countries constitutional instruments. Obviously, human/personal rights can be, and some would argue ought to be, recognised and protected by law, and are important enough that this can or should be done at the constitutional level. So, in the US context, the human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, politically recognised in the Declaration of Independence, become constitutional rights to the extent that they are legally recognised and protected in the Bill of Rights. Not all legal protection of human rights takes place at the constitutional level. International instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights seek to provide protection which is independent of, and is an alternative to, the protections offered by the constitutions or domestic legal systems of states that are party to the convention. Again, there’ll be a considerable overlap. Most states party to the ECHR also have domestic constitutional protection of human rights, which may predate the Convention (as in the case of Ireland or France) or postdate it (e.g. Spain). ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2021, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/27 "2021-09-30T13:33:49Z")
> [@keeganst94](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only difference is that in America all of those clauses are considered to be implied and are decided by the courts. The plain text may say that the government “shall not” do this or that, but the plain reading of the text is incorrect. > > For example, “The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Except you can’t perform human sacrifices (even on fully willing participants), you can’t be polygamous, you can’t claim that your religion requires public nudity, or the commission of crimes, etc. The Supreme Court in the US decided that the government in fact could make law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, provided that it had a compelling interest to do so and met strict scrutiny. All of those “weasel words” that the UK act has are also true of the US bill of rights, it’s just not explicit. I think there’s a big difference. True there are always going to be edge cases that need to be decided by the courts, regardless of how unambiguous seeming the bill of rights is (What if your speech is a direct threat of violence? What if your religious ceremony involves commiting a crime against someone else?) That’s not the same as an explicit “unless the government feels like it” clause in the bill itself. The burqa ban is a good example of that, it’s not an edge case it’s about as fundamental as it gets. And the fact the European human rights act allows it because, you know, the government really wants to do it, whereas the bill of rights would not, shows the bill of rights is better at protecting citizens rights. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2022, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/28 "2022-03-27T02:56:44Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > “Everyone has the right to fair labour practices. Every worker has the right to form and join a trade union; to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and to strike.” These rights are covered in Canada by the guarantee of freedom of association. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2022, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/29 "2022-03-27T06:15:00Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > These rights are covered in Canada by the guarantee of freedom of association.   Would firing workers because they go on strike be covered by freedom of association? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2022, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/30 "2022-03-27T12:06:33Z")
The issue’s not come up under the Charter, because 60 years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously held that employees were protected for going on strike, by a combination of the common law and labour relations statutes. It would be an unfair labour practice if the employer fired striking workers. Since there already is that protection, the issue hasn’t come up as a Charter matter. The case is _Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Zambri_. > **[Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Zambri - SCC Cases](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4005/index.do)** > > This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court. Although that specific point has not come up under the Charter, the SCC has held that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association protects the right to strike. ---
**Author:** ![Bootb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@Bootb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bootb)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2022, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/31 "2022-03-27T14:11:30Z")
> [@keeganst94](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only difference is that in America all of those clauses are considered to be implied and are decided by the courts. The plain text may say that the government “shall not” do this or that, but the plain reading of the text is incorrect. > > For example, “The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Except you can’t perform human sacrifices (even on fully willing participants), you can’t be polygamous, you can’t claim that your religion requires public nudity, or the commission of crimes, etc. The Supreme Court in the US decided that the government in fact could make law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, provided that it had a compelling interest to do so and met strict scrutiny. All of those “weasel words” that the UK act has are also true of the US bill of rights, it’s just not explicit. No rights are absolute. What the US Constitution does is create a much higher bar for the government to get over, compared to what nearly all other governments in other countries face. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2022, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/32 "2022-03-28T01:24:20Z")
> [@Bootb](#): > > No rights are absolute. What the US Constitution does is create a much higher bar for the government to get over, compared to what nearly all other governments in other countries face. “Nearly all governments in other countries” is a very wide claim; can you back it up? Lots of countries have constitutionally-entrenched bills of rights. Do you think they are generally easier for governments to circumvent than the US Bill of Rights is? Why do you think that? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2022, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/33 "2022-03-28T02:18:49Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > a very wide claim Indeed, apocryphal. Would doubt that even "a higher bar " necessarily applies. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2022, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473/34 "2022-03-28T02:29:04Z")
> [@Bootb](#): > > No rights are absolute. What the US Constitution does is create a much higher bar for the government to get over, compared to what nearly all other governments in other countries face. I’m sure the Gitmo detainees who have been held for years under **[lettres de cachet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_de_cachet)** in the US’s very own Bastille would take comfort from that assertion. > **[List of Guantanamo Bay detainees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees)** > > Detainees by nationality > As of May 2023\[update\], 30 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay. This list of Guantánamo prisoners has the known identities of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, but is compiled from various sources and is incomplete. In official documents, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) continues to make intermittent efforts to redact prisoner's names. As of September 2005\[update\] they had not published an official list of detainees. On April 19, 2006... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-in-other-countries/951473.md?page=1)