# Rights in other countries **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 29, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852 "2010-08-29T01:41:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tonysidaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2acd7d/32.png) [@tonysidaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tonysidaway)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/21 "2010-08-30T05:12:14Z")
On the question of where rights come from, I think my spidey senses detect an American voice. Recently I read an article by an American constitutional law professor who said that in teaching the United States constitution one of the first things he would do was set his students to work with a highlighter and a copy of the constitution and ask them to mark each and every mention of God, the Creator, the Lord, and so on. While some or perhaps even most state constitutions explicitly mention God, the nearest I can find to such a mention in the US Constitution is in the phrase “Year of our Lord” in the preamble. ---
**Author:** ![Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba8739/32.png) [@Slightly\_mad\_scientist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slightly_mad_scientist)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/22 "2010-08-30T06:28:55Z")
In Germany, the rights are defined in the Grundgesetz (essentially our consitution), they are just listed in the beginning of the Grundgesetz. There is no justification, just a list of rights. Interstingly, the paragraphs 1 (inviolability of human dignity) and 20 (Germany is a democracy, …) are unchangeable. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/23 "2010-08-30T06:51:56Z")
Well, in Spain we go to RAE, to the UN, and to the Constitución 🙂 As to what constitutes a “right”, related definitions of “derecho”: 2. adj. Justo, legítimo. = fair, legitimate 9. m. Facultad del ser humano para hacer legítimamente lo que conduce a los fines de su vida. = Legitimate ability of a human being to perform those actions which lead to his/her life’s goals. 10. m. Facultad de hacer o exigir todo aquello que la ley o la autoridad establece en nuestro favor, o que el dueño de una cosa nos permite en ella. = Ability to do or claim whatever law or authority establish for our benefit, or which the owner or something allows us to use it for. 11. m. Consecuencia natural del estado de una persona, o de sus relaciones con respecto a otras. (El derecho del padre Los derechos de la amistad) = Natural consequence of someone’s state, or of their relationship to others (A father’s rights, the rights of friends) 12. m. Acción que se tiene sobre una persona o sobre una cosa. = Action which can be performed on a person or object. 13. m. Justicia, razón. = Justice, correctness. 14. m. Conjunto de principios y normas, expresivos de una idea de justicia y de orden, que regulan las relaciones humanas en toda sociedad y cuya observancia puede ser impuesta de manera coactiva.= Legal framework. 15. m. Ciencia que estudia estos principios y preceptos.= The study of the legal framework. ~ adquirido: El creado al amparo de una legislación y que merece respeto de las posteriores. =That which, having been granted or obtained under a specific legal system, must be preserved later. For specific rights, as I said, there’s the UN Declarations and the Spanish Constitution. One of the rights in the Consti had to be clarified by the Constitutional Court, specifically the right to non-discrimination, where the CC determined that the items listed for this right in the Constitution were examples and not (as in the US) the only cases that count. Specifically, the suit had been brought about discrimination for sexual orientation (not listed in the Constitution), but the CC said that discriminating for anything other than “ability, willingness and actual performance” is forbidden, period. Note that this suit was close enough to the approval of the Constitution that the CC was able to consult with most of the Fathers of the Constitution, who basically said “heck, we hadn’t listed that because we didn’t think about it, but then, we hadn’t listed ‘thee shalt not discriminate against someone for being a fan of Athletic’ either and that would be equally wrong”. The notion of derecho adquirido is very important: for example, PP had been against same-sex marriage and they did, as promised, bring a suit about its legality to the CC, but something they made clear from the start was that if the CC said it SSM was proper according to the Constitution (and nobody expected them to say it wasn’t), they would not, in a million years, write a law taking it off the books. Specifically, the answer of PP’s president to the reporters asking whether they would create such a law next time they’re in power could be best translated as “do you think I’m on drugs or what?” ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/24 "2010-08-30T06:57:35Z")
Typo, sorry: in the translation for 10, it should say “the owner of something” ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/25 "2010-08-30T13:06:48Z")
Saudi Arabia recognizes the right of making the Pilgrimage. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/26 "2010-08-30T14:03:07Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Thank you for proving my point: Without a philosophy, how do you decide what’s an acceptable reason? […] How do you know which of those laws to pass? I’m not exactly sure where you’re getting at. Or from. I mean, what country on Earth has a surefire “philosophy” guiding it every step of the way and telling it what’s right or wrong, which rights should end where etc… ? When all is said and done, it’s the elected representatives and the institutions who, using the power vested in them by us slackers, decide whether making an exception for case X is in the best interest of society or not. And if it all goes pear shaped, we strike it from the books and try again. ---
**Author:** ![tonysidaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2acd7d/32.png) [@tonysidaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tonysidaway)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/27 "2010-08-31T10:52:44Z")
This Wikipedia article on the judicial concept of natural justice may help to bring Derleth up to speed on how the philosophy of constitutional law has developed in many jurisdictions. > **[Natural justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice)** > > In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly". > The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias, or apparent bias. Actual bias i... I would also like to note that the idea that US legal philosophy is based on biblical principles or has been in the past is not supported by the historical evidence. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/28 "2010-08-31T12:01:55Z")
In South Africa, rights are defined as part of the Constitution. Ours is better than the American one. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/29 "2010-08-31T14:33:37Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > One thing I know that shocked me when I was looking something up years ago was the ability of some Western nations to ban book sales. I was looking up Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_. And I was shocked to find it banned in some Western nations. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the reason _Mein Kampf_ is banned in Germany is that the Americans banned it as part of their Denazification campaign following WW2. Rather ironic, I suppose… ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/30 "2010-08-31T14:48:43Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > The traditional concept in England and Wales was the Common Law based upon prohibitions, anything which was expressly not prohibited was allowed… Old PoliSci joke: In a democracy, what is not prohibited is permitted. In a dictatorship, what is not prohibited is compulsory. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/31 "2010-08-31T14:49:15Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > > [@Markxxx](#): > > > > One thing I know that shocked me when I was looking something up years ago was the ability of some Western nations to ban book sales. I was looking up Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_. And I was shocked to find it banned in some Western nations. > > I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the reason _Mein Kampf_ is banned in Germany is that the Americans banned it as part of their Denazification campaign following WW2. Rather ironic, I suppose… It’s part of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which is the German equivalent to the Constitution. Article 18 gives the Federal Constitutional Court the power to withold certain basic rights (including the right to publish a book) if they deem those rights are being used against the free democratic order. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/32 "2010-08-31T14:55:07Z")
But that condition was imposed by the Allies, wasn’t it? I don’t know much about that period of history, so I may be misremembering. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/33 "2010-08-31T15:11:54Z")
As far as I know, no rule the Allies imposed on then-West Germany is still binding unless the Germans themselves wish to retain it. ---
**Author:** ![Rosentredere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/0ea827/32.png) [@Rosentredere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rosentredere)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/34 "2010-08-31T15:38:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@phaemon](#): > > > > I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the reason _Mein Kampf_ is banned in Germany is that the Americans banned it as part of their Denazification campaign following WW2. Rather ironic, I suppose… > > It’s part of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which is the German equivalent to the Constitution. Article 18 gives the Federal Constitutional Court the power to withold certain basic rights (including the right to publish a book) if they deem those rights are being used against the free democratic order. “Mein Kampf” is not banned at all. The rights to it are owned by the state of Bavaria, which simply refuses to allow any copying or printing of the book in Germany. Owning and selling of existing copies is perfectly legal. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/35 "2010-08-31T15:46:40Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > But that condition was imposed by the Allies, wasn’t it? I don’t know much about that period of history, so I may be misremembering. It’s kind of iffy. The Basic Law was written and enacted by Germans in 1949. But Germany at that time was under occupation by Britain, France, and the United States (the Soviet part wasn’t included in the process) which may have indirectly encouraged the Germans to go in certain directions when writing the laws. On the other hand, it’s not hard to believe that a lot of Germans in 1949 must have looked back on their recent history and concluded on their own that Nazism had been a bad idea and should be avoided in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Rosentredere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/0ea827/32.png) [@Rosentredere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rosentredere)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/36 "2010-08-31T15:51:12Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > But that condition was imposed by the Allies, wasn’t it? I don’t know much about that period of history, so I may be misremembering. In contrast with Japan, whose post-war Constitution was indeed drafted by US army officers, in the case of Germany the Allies only set very rough guidelines (essentially Democracy, Human Rights and AFAIK a federal Structure). The actual Constitution was then designed by 70 Delegates of the state Parliaments. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852/37 "2010-08-31T15:52:44Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > How do you decide what is acceptable? That is what our elected representatives do and if we don’t like them we chuck 'em out next time. Yes, but how do _you_ decide? If a majority of your countrymen were to endorse (by means of their votes for representation) a set of new laws curtailing some group’s freedoms, would that make it “right” in _your_ eyes? Or is there any principle at work beyond the power of the ballot box? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rights-in-other-countries/551852.md?page=1)