Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen 

 

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, painted by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789), set by France's National Constituent Assembly in 1789, is a human civil rights document from the French Revolution.

The Declaration was drafted by the Abbé Sieyès and the Marquis de Lafayette, in consultation with Thomas Jefferson. Influenced by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included in the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired by the Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of popular conceptions of individual liberty and democracy in Europe and worldwide.

The 1789 Declaration, together with the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 United States Bill of Rights, inspired in large part the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

History

The content of the document emerged largely from the ideals of the Enlightenment. The principal drafts were prepared by Lafayette, working at times with his close friend Thomas Jefferson. In August 1789, Honoré Mirabeau played a central role in conceptualizing and drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The last article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was adopted on the 26 of August 1789 by the National Constituent Assembly, during the period of the French Revolution, as the first step toward writing a constitution for France. Inspired by the Enlightenment, the original version of the Declaration was discussed by the representatives on the basis of a 24 article draft proposed by the sixth bureau, led by Jérôme Champion de Cicé. The draft was later modified during the debates. A second and lengthier declaration, known as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793, was written in 1793 but never formally adopted.

Philosophical and theoretical context

Print of the 17 articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 (Musée de la Révolution française)

The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the social contract as theorized by the Genevan philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu. As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration was heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment and principles of human rights as was the U.S. Declaration of Independence which preceded it (4 July 1776).

According to a legal textbook published in 2007, the declaration is in the spirit of "secular natural law", which does not base itself on religious doctrine or authority, in contrast with traditional natural law theory, which does.

The declaration defines a single set of individual and collective rights for all men. Influenced by the doctrine of natural rights, these rights are held to be universal and valid in all times and places. For example, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." They have certain natural rights to property, to liberty, and to life. According to this theory, the role of government is to recognize and secure these rights. Furthermore, the government should be carried on by elected representatives.

At the time it was written, the rights contained in the declaration were only awarded to men. Furthermore, the declaration was a statement of vision rather than reality. The declaration was not deeply rooted in either the practice of the West or even France at the time. The declaration emerged in the late 18th century out of war and revolution. It encountered opposition as democracy and individual rights were frequently regarded as synonymous with anarchy and subversion. This declaration embodies ideals and aspirations towards which France pledged to struggle in the future.

Substance

The Declaration is introduced by a preamble describing the fundamental characteristics of the rights which are qualified as being "natural, unalienable and sacred" and consisting of "simple and incontestable principles" on which citizens could base their demands. In the second article, "the natural and imprescriptible rights of man" are defined as "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression". It called for the destruction of aristocratic privileges by proclaiming an end to feudalism and to exemptions from taxation, freedom and equal rights for all "Men", and access to public office based on talent. The monarchy was restricted, and all citizens were to have the right to take part in the legislative process. Freedom of speech and press were declared, and arbitrary arrests outlawed.

The Declaration also asserted the principles of popular sovereignty, in contrast to the divine right of kings that characterized the French monarchy, and social equality among citizens, "All the citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents," eliminating the special rights of the nobility and clergy.

Articles

Article I – Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

Article III – The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

Article VI – The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes. All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.

Article VII – No man can be accused, arrested nor detained but in the cases determined by the law, and according to the forms which it has prescribed. Those who solicit, dispatch, carry out or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders, must be punished; but any citizen called or seized under the terms of the law must obey at once; he renders himself culpable by resistance.

Article VIII – The law should establish only penalties that are strictly and evidently necessary, and no one can be punished but under a law established and promulgated before the offense and legally applied.

Article IX – Any man being presumed innocent until he is declared culpable if it is judged indispensable to arrest him, any rigor which would not be necessary for the securing of his person must be severely reprimanded by the law.

Article X – No one may be disquieted for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

Article XII – The guarantee of the rights of man and of the citizen necessitates a public force: this force is thus instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular utility of those in whom it is trusted. 

Article XIII – For the maintenance of the public force and for the expenditures of administration, a common contribution is indispensable; it must be equally distributed to all the citizens, according to their ability to pay.

Article XIV – Each citizen has the right to ascertain, by himself or through his representatives, the need for a public tax, to consent to it freely, to know the uses to which it is put, and of determining the proportion, basis, collection, and duration.

Article XV – The society has the right of requesting an account from any public agent of its administration.

Article XVI – Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no Constitution.

Article XVII – Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.

Active and passive citizenship

While the French Revolution provided rights to a larger portion of the population, there remained a distinction between those who obtained the political rights in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and those who did not. Those who were deemed to hold these political rights were called active citizens. Active citizenship was granted to men who were French, at least 25 years old, paid taxes equal to three days work, and could not be defined as servants (Thouret). This meant that at the time of the Declaration only male property owners held these rights. The deputies in the National Assembly believed that only those who held tangible interests in the nation could make informed political decisions. This distinction directly affects articles 6, 12, 14, and 15 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as each of these rights is related to the right to vote and to participate actively in the government. With the decree of 29 October 1789, the term active citizen became embedded in French politics.

The concept of passive citizens was created to encompass those populations that had been excluded from political rights in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Because of the requirements set down for active citizens, the vote was granted to approximately 4.3 million Frenchmen out of a population of around 29 million. These omitted groups included women, slaves, children, and foreigners. As these measures were voted upon by the General Assembly, they limited the rights of certain groups of citizens while implementing the democratic process of the new French Republic (1792–1804). This legislation, passed in 1789, was amended by the creators of the Constitution of the Year III in order to eliminate the label of active citizen. The power to vote was then, however, to be granted solely to substantial property owners.

Tensions arose between active and passive citizens throughout the Revolution. This happened when passive citizens started to call for more rights, or when they openly refused to listen to the ideals set forth by active citizens. This cartoon clearly demonstrates the difference that existed between the active and passive citizens along with the tensions associated with such differences. In the cartoon, a passive citizen is holding a spade and a wealthy landowning active citizen is ordering the passive citizens to go to work. The act appears condescending to the passive citizen and it revisits the reasons why the French Revolution began in the first place.

Women, in particular, were strong passive citizens who played a significant role in the Revolution. Olympe de Gouges penned her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791 and drew attention to the need for gender equality. By supporting the ideals of the French Revolution and wishing to expand them to women, she represented herself as a revolutionary citizen. Madame Roland also established herself as an influential figure throughout the Revolution. She saw women of the French Revolution as holding three roles; "inciting revolutionary action, formulating policy, and informing others of revolutionary events." By working with men, as opposed to working separate from men, she may have been able to further the fight of revolutionary women. As players in the French Revolution, women occupied a significant role in the civic sphere by forming social movements and participating in popular clubs, allowing them societal influence, despite their lack of direct political influence.

Women's rights

The Declaration recognized many rights as belonging to citizens (who could only be male). This was despite the fact that after The March on Versailles on 5 October 1789, women presented the Women's Petition to the National Assembly in which they proposed a decree giving women equal rights. In 1790, Nicolas de Condorcet and Etta Palm d'Aelders unsuccessfully called on the National Assembly to extend civil and political rights to women. Condorcet declared that "he who votes against the right of another, whatever the religion, color, or sex of that other, has henceforth abjured his own". The French Revolution did not lead to a recognition of women's rights and this prompted Olympe de Gouges to publish the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in September 1791.

The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen is modeled on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and is ironic in formulation and exposes the failure of the French Revolution, which had been devoted to equality. It states that:

This revolution will only take effect when all women become fully aware of their deplorable condition, and of the rights, they have lost in society.

The Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen follows the seventeen articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen point for point and has been described by Camille Naish as "almost a parody... of the original document". The first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaims that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility." The first article of Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen replied: "Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common utility".

De Gouges also draws attention to the fact that under French law women were fully punishable, yet denied equal rights, declaring "Women have the right to mount the scaffold, they must also have the right to mount the speaker's rostrum".

Slavery

The declaration did not revoke the institution of slavery, as lobbied for by Jacques-Pierre Brissot's Les Amis des Noirs and defended by the group of colonial planters called the Club Massiac because they met at the Hôtel Massiac. Despite the lack of explicit mention of slavery in the Declaration, slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue in the Haitian Revolution were inspired by it, as discussed in C. L. R. James' history of the Haitian Revolution, The Black Jacobins.

Deplorable conditions for the thousands of slaves in Saint-Domingue, the most profitable slave colony in the world, led to the uprisings which would be known as the first successful slave revolt in the New World. Free persons of color were part of the first wave of revolt, but later former slaves took control. In 1794 the Convention dominated by the Jacobins abolished slavery, including in the colonies of Saint-Domingue and Guadeloupe. However, Napoleon reinstated it in 1802 and attempted to regain control of Saint-Domingue by sending in thousands of troops. After suffering the losses of two-thirds of the men, many to yellow fever, the French withdrew from Saint-Domingue in 1803. Napoleon gave up on North America and agreed to the Louisiana Purchase by the United States. In 1804, the leaders of Saint-Domingue declared it as an independent state, the Republic of Haiti, the second republic of the New World.

Legacy

The Declaration has also influenced and inspired rights-based liberal democracy throughout the world. It was translated as soon as 1793–1794 by Colombian Antonio Nariño, who published it despite the Inquisition. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for doing so. In 2003, the document was listed on UNESCO's Memory of the World register.

Constitution of the French Fifth Republic

According to the preamble of the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic (adopted on 4 October 1958, and the current constitution), the principles set forth in the Declaration have constitutional value. Many laws and regulations have been canceled because they did not comply with those principles as interpreted by the Conseil Constitutionnel ("Constitutional Council of France") or by the Conseil d'État ("Council of State").

• Taxation legislation or practices that seem to make some unwarranted difference between citizens are struck down as unconstitutional.
• Suggestions of positive discrimination on ethnic grounds are rejected because they infringe on the principle of equality, since they would establish categories of people that would, by birth, enjoy greater rights.

Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms 

A woman trains real-life defensive gun use scenarios with live ammunition at a video shooting range in Prague, Czech Republic.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Only a few countries support the idea that their people have a right to keep and bear arms and protect it on a statutory level, and even fewer protect such a right on a constitutional level.

Background

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law. The term arms as used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war. It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon.

Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling". In an article titled "U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism," a historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, Tom Ginsburg and colleagues "identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century".

Americas

Colombia

Colombians can not bear arms unless the government allows it. The 1993 gun law states that "only the government can import, export, manufacture, and market firearms, ammunition, explosives and their components, arms making equipment, and all activities thereto pertaining". The state agency in charge of weapons and explosives manufacture, and main supplier to the Colombian Armed Forces is Indumil.

Guatemala

The right to own weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of in habitation, is recognized. There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge.

— Article 38 of Guatemala Constitution

While protecting the right to keep arms, Guatemalan constitution specifies that this right extends only to "weapons not prohibited by law".

Honduras

Although not explicitly protected by the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is conditionally guaranteed by Honduran Statute law.

Every person, in the exercise of their civil rights, may request a maximum of five (5) licences for the possession and carrying of up to five (5) firearms by submitting an application with the following information:

1) Form with personal information and residence;
2) Brand, model, serial number, identification of modification of calibre, if any; as well as any other characteristics of the weapon;
3) Proof of having undertaken a ballistic test;
4) Payment of municipal matriculation and criminal background check; and,
5) Identification documents.

— Article 27 of Decree No. 69-2007, Modifying the Act on the Control of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials

Mexico

The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms.  Article 10 of Mexican Constitution.

Mexican constitution of 1857 first included right to be armed. In its first version, the right was defined in similar terms as it is in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A new Mexican constitution of 1917 relativized the right, stating that its utilization must be in line with local police regulations.

Another change was included in 1971 Constitution. Since then, Mexicans have the right to be armed only within their home and further utilization of this right is subject to statutory authorization in Federal law.

United States

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

— Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Generally, where modern constitutions refer to arms at all, the purpose is "to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them". Constitutions which historically guaranteed a right to bear arms are those of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United States of America. Nearly all of the Latin American examples were modeled on that of the United States. At present, out of the world's nearly 200 constitutions, three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States; of these three, only the last does not include explicit restrictive conditions. Until 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never struck down a law aimed at regulating guns. The first ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the second amendment, United States v. Cruikshank in 1876, permitted states to restrict firearm ownership by minorities, ruling the first and second amendment only applied to the federal government, not state governments and laws. This ruling was overturned in 2008, as a result of the case of District of Columbia v. Heller and, two years later, McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could not restrict the ownership of handguns for self-defense.

Europe

Czech Republic

(1) Everyone has the right to life. Human life is worthy of protection even before birth.
(2) Nobody may be deprived of her life.
(3) The death penalty is prohibited.
(4) Deprivation of life is not inflicted in contravention of this Article if it occurs in connection with conduct which is not criminal under the law. The right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms is guaranteed under conditions set out in the law.

— Proposal of amendment of Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms lodged by 35 Senators on 24 September 2019 (Text in italics is preexisting, the last sentence in subsection 4 is newly proposed in the Amendment.)

Historically, the Czech lands were at the forefront of the spreading of civilian firearms ownership. In the 1420s and 1430s, firearms became indispensable tools for the mostly peasant Hussite armies, whose amateur combatants, including women, fended off a series of invasions of professional crusader armies of well-armored warriors with cold weapons. Throughout and after the Hussite wars, firearms design underwent fast development and their possession by civilians became a matter of course. First firearms regulation was enacted in 1517 as a part of general accord between the nobles and burghers and later in 1524 as a standalone Enactment on Firearms (zřízení o ručnicích). The 1517 law explicitly stated that "all people of all standing have the right to keep firearms at home" while at the same time enacting a universal carry ban. The 1524 enactment set out a process of issuing of permits for carrying of firearms and detailed enforcement and punishment for carrying without such a permit. Carrying later became again permitless until 1852, when Imperial Regulation No. 223 again introduced carry permits.

Since inception through the Hussite revolution, the right to keep firearms endured for over half-millennia until the Nazi gun ban during the German occupation in the 20th century. Firearms possession later became subject to government permission during the communist dictatorship with only those deemed loyal to the communist party being able to be armed. After return of liberty, the Czech Republic instated shall issue permitting process, under which all residents can keep and bear arms subject to fulfillment of regulatory conditions.

In the Czech Republic, every resident that meets conditions laid down in Act No. 119/2002 Coll. has the right to have firearms license issued and can then obtain a firearm. Holders of D (exercise of profession) and E (self-defense) licenses, which are also shall-issue, can carry up to two concealed firearms for protection. The right to be armed is statutorily protected, however it is not listed in the constitution.

A proposal to have right to keep and bear arms included in the constitution was entered in the Czech Parliament in December 2016. The proposal was approved by vote of 139 to 9 on 28 June 2017 by the Chamber of Deputies. It later failed to reach necessary support in Senate, where only 28 out of 59 Senators present supported it (constitutional majority being 36 votes ). A new proposal was entered by 35 Senators in September 2019.

Switzerland

The Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms under Article 3 of the 1997 Weapons Act. Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his obligation. Until December 2009, these men were required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes as long as they were enrolled in the armed forces. Since January 2010, they have had the option of depositing their personal firearm at a government arsenal. Until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home; after 2007 only about 2,000 specialist troops are allowed to keep the ammunition at home.

In a referendum in February 2011, voters rejected a citizens' initiative that would have obliged members of the armed services to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds and required that privately owned firearms be registered.

United Kingdom

the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

— Bill of Rights 1689

The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. While citizens may possess certain firearms on an appropriate licence, All handguns, automatic, and centerfire semi-automatic weapons are illegal to possess without special provisons.

The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act 1920.

Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to carry a knife (with the exception of non-locking folding knives with a cutting edge of 3 inches (7.62 centimetres) or less) or any "offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The cutting edge of a knife is separate to the blade length. The only manner in which an individual can carry arms is on private property or any property which the public does not have a lawful right of access as the law only creates the offence when it occurs in public e.g. a person's own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have no access, etc. Furthermore, Section 141 Criminal Justice Act 1988 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot technically be owned - even on private property - by way of making it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to another person.

Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or ordinary item intended or adapted as an offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming".

Other

Sharia law

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms. However, in times of civil strife or internal violence, this right can be temporarily suspended to keep peace and prevent harm, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari'ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari'ah) Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. In exchange they do not need to pay the zakat.

Yemen

The Law Regulating Carrying Firearms, Ammunition & their Trade states that:

The citizens of the Republic shall have the right to hold the necessary rifles, machine guns, revolvers, and hunting rifles for their personal use with an amount of ammunition for the purpose of legitimate defense.

Firearms are both easily and legally accessible.

Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms

Legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are usually put in place by legislators because they believe that they will reduce gun related violence. Their actions are frequently the result of political pressure for such controls. The Brady, Snowdrop Campaigns, and the Million Mom March are examples of campaigns calling for tighter restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Accident statistics are hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun related deaths. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons between countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and between gun ownership levels and gun suicides. A strong correlation is seen in both.

During the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Surveys, data on gun ownership in eighteen countries have been collected on which WHO data on suicide and homicide committed with guns and other means are also available. The results presented in a previous paper based on the fourteen countries surveyed during the first ICS and on rank correlations (Spearman's rho), suggested that gun ownership may increase suicides and homicides using firearms, while it may not reduce suicides and homicides with other means. In the present analysis, four additional countries covered by the 1992 ICS only have been included, and Pearson's correlation coefficients r have been used. The results confirm those presented in the previous study.

UNICRI also investigated the relationship between gun ownership levels and other forms of homicide or suicide to determine whether high gun ownership added to or merely displaced other forms of homicide or suicide. They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide." Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a—fatal—role in this".

The research reporter found that guns were the major cause of homicides in 3 of the 14 countries it studied; Northern Ireland, Italy, and the United States. Although the data seem to indicate that reducing the availability of one significant type of arms—firearms—leads to reductions both in gun crimes and gun suicides and in overall crimes and overall suicides, the author did caution that "reducing the number of guns in the hands of the private citizen may become a hopeless task beyond a certain point", citing the American example.

In contrast to the 1993 study however, a more recent study by UNICRI researchers from 2001 examined the link between household gun ownership and overall homicide, overall suicide, as well as gun homicide and gun suicide rates amongst 21 countries. Significant correlations between household gun ownership and rates of gun suicides for both genders, and gun homicide rates involving female victims were found. There were no significant correlations detected for total homicide and suicide rates, as well as gun homicide rates involving male victims. Public health critic and gun rights proponent Miguel Faria writing in Surgical Neurology International contends that to keep and bear arms have not only constitutional protection but also that firearms have beneficial aspects that have been ignored by the public health establishment in which he played a part; that guns are beneficial in personal self-defense, collective defense, as well as in protecting life and property.

United States Constitution and worldwide influence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_and_worldwide_influence

The United States Constitution has had influence internationally on later constitutions and legal thinking. Its influence appears in similarities of phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and recognition of individual rights. The United American experience of amendments and judicial review motivated constitutionalism at times when they were considering the possibilities for their nation's future. Examples include Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, his contemporary and ally Benito Juárez of Mexico, and the second generation of 19th-century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of the Philippines and Sun Yat-sen of China. However, democratizing countries often chose more centralized British or French models of government, particularly the Westminster system. Since the latter half of the 20th century, the influence of the United States Constitution may be waning as other countries have revised their constitutions with new influences.

National constitutions

The historian William H. McNeill argued that the United States saw itself as "one of a family of peoples and nations" making a history apart from the European civilization of their colonization.

The United States Constitution is an expression of Americans diverging from colonial rule, according to this viewpoint. Its effect is reflected in the ideals of limiting the rulers of a state apart and above sitting law-givers in a parliament. The concepts of governance influencing others internationally are not only found among similarities in phrasing and entire passages from the U.S. Constitution. They are in the principles of the rule of law and recognition of individual rights. The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and judicial review has motivated foreign constitutionalists to reconsider possibilities for their own future. This view informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, his contemporary and ally Benito Juarez of Mexico, and the second generation of 19th century constitutional nationalists, José Rizal of the Philippines and Sun Yat-sen of China. The Australian Constitution which came into force in 1901 was strongly influenced by the US Constitution, while at the same time preserving Westminster traditions and the British monarchy. It adopted a federal system similar to the US, with a senate that represented the states. It also adopted the concepts of a formal separation of power and judicial review.

Generally the influence of the Constitution appears in trans-national history of ideas, foreign translations, and exchanges between Americans and their counterparts from the beginning with smuggled translations into Hispanic America until today with conferences among national legislators. Innovations include constitutional conventions, written constitutions, ratification and amendment procedures. There are common provisions for presidential executives, federalism and judicial review.

George Athan Billias, studying the Constitution and related documents, describes six waves of influence:

1. From 1776 to 1811, after the American Revolution began, it influenced northwestern Europe and its colonial connections.
2. 1811–1848, after the decline of Napoleon's reputation, it was referenced by Latin American, Caribbean, and European nationalists.
3. 1898–1918, after the Spanish–American War, nationalist movements borrowed from the U.S. Constitution in Asia and Latin America.
4. 1918–1945, after World War I, its influence spread with movements for decolonization of Africa, Mid-east and Asia.
5. 1945–1974, after World War II, independence movements consulted it.
6. 1974–1989, after United Nations expansion, once nondemocratic regimes, including European ones, transitioned towards constitutional democracies incorporating elements of the U.S. Constitution.

Over its history, the influence of American constitutionalism has waxed and waned. Democratizing countries often chose the more centralized, consolidated British or French models. Many countries that were once part of the British Empire favored the British Westminster parliamentary system. Internationally it appears that those of Confucian and Islamic cultures do not readily adopt some of its premises. Nevertheless, "the influence of American constitutionalism abroad was profound in the past and remains a remarkable contribution to humankind's search for freedom under a system of laws."

According to a 2012 study published in the New York University Law Review, however, the influence of the U.S. Constitution may be waning. The study examined more than 700 federal constitutions from nearly 200 countries. "Rather than leading the way for global constitutionalism, the U.S. Constitution appears instead to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere," the researchers write. "The idea of adopting a constitution may still trace its inspiration to the United States, but the manner in which constitutions are written increasingly does not." In particular, the study found that the U.S. Constitution guarantees relatively few rights compared to the constitutions of other countries and contains less than half (26 of 60) of the provisions listed in the average bill of rights. It is also one of the few in the world today that still features the right to keep and bear arms; the only others are the constitutions of Guatemala and Mexico. Overall, the research suggests that the Constitution of Canada, revised in 1982, is now a leading international model rather than that of the United States.

Translations

The Federal Judicial Center links to translations of the U.S. Constitution in nine languages. The site offers other materials in eighteen languages besides English, such as Dari, Indonesian, Malay, Serb, and Turkish. The Center's statutory mission includes working with judges and court officials of the U.S. and other nations to improve the administration of justice.

The Constitution Finder of the University of Richmond has links to translations into ten different languages. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania lists a translation into Armenian.

Professor James Chen has annotated the Spanish translation prepared by the U.S. State Department. His notes focus on the problems and nuances of this translation. Elizabeth Claire has rewritten the Constitution into simplified English. Some of the many translations of the Constitution are listed below.

• Arabic
• Chinese
• Dutch
• Finnish
• French
• Georgian
• German
• Hebrew
• Hungarian
• Italian
• Japanese
• Korean
• Latin
• Portuguese
• Russian
• Slovak
• Spanish
• Swedish
• Thai
• Ukrainian
• Vietnamese

The Bill of Rights

The U.S. State Department lists translations of the Bill of Rights into fifty-one languages:

Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azeri, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, French, Georgian, German, Greek, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kurdish, Malay, Nepali, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese-Brazilian, Portuguese-Continental, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Thai, Turkish, Uighur, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Yoruba.

A second site links to the following translations: Arabic, Armenian, Chinese (simplified), French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish. The Bill of Rights has been translated into Hawaiian.

Commemorative stamps

150th Anniversary 2nd Spanish Republic, 1937

In 1937 the U.S. Post Office released a commemorative stamp to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The engraving shown on this issue is after an 1856 painting by Junius Brutus Stearns of Washington and shows delegates signing the Constitution at the 1787 Convention. George Washington is on dais with an open document in hand; James Madison sits at the table, taking his famous notes on the convention.

One commemorative of the 19th Amendment (permitting women the right to vote) was celebrated in a commemorative in 1950 and again in 1970. The woman is voting in a curtained mechanical voting booth. She chooses levers to punch or mark her votes on a paper roll. The Model T has a male driver with a banner "Votes for women" on the car, women riders and marchers as though in a parade.

The Second Polish Republic issued a commemorative of the U.S. and Polish Constitutions in 1938 under the government of Prime Minister, Major General Składkowski The stamp features George Washington in military regalia, holding a 48-star American flag and a drawn sword. Thomas Paine holds a book on a rod, and Kosciuszko poses with a cross and saber. The next scene shows a line of infantry flying a Polish flag. The right panel shows the Statue of Liberty imposed in front of the New York 1930s skyline.

In 1937 the Second Spanish Republic commemorated the 150th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, under the government of Prime Minister Juan Negrín of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). The Statue of Liberty is the central focus, flanked by flags of Spain and the United States. The Spanish Republic Flag of red, yellow and purple, as battle flag or civil ensign, lacks the coat of arms.

Rights of Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man 

Rights of Man

Title page from the first edition
Author	Thomas Paine
Country	Britain
Language	English
Subject	The French Revolution
Publication date	1791

Rights of Man (1791), a book by Thomas Paine, including 31 articles, posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard the natural rights of its people. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke's attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

It was published in two parts in March 1791 and February 1792.

Background

Paine was a very strong supporter of the French Revolution that began in 1789; he visited France the following year. Many English thinkers supported it, including Richard Price, who initiated the Revolution Controversy with his sermon and pamphlet drawing favourable parallels between the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution. Conservative intellectual Edmund Burke responded with a counter-revolutionary attack entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), which strongly appealed to the landed class and sold 30,000 copies. Paine's Rights of Man was printed by Joseph Johnson for publication on 21 February 1791, then withdrawn for fear of prosecution. J. S. Jordan stepped in and published it on 16 March. The 90,000-word book appeared on 13 March, three weeks later than scheduled. It sold as many as one million copies and was "eagerly read by reformers, Protestant dissenters, democrats, London craftsman, and the skilled factory-hands of the new industrial north".

Arguments

Paine argues that the interests of the monarch and his people are united, and insists that the French Revolution should be understood as one which attacks the despotic principles of the French monarchy, not the king himself, and he takes the Bastille, the main prison in Paris, to symbolise the despotism that had been overthrown.

Human rights originate in Nature; thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

... It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect—that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few ... They ... consequently are instruments of injustice ... The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

— Rights of Man, I, London, 1795, pp. 125-126, Rights of Man, II, London, 1795, p. 13.

Government's sole purpose is safeguarding the individual and his/her inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate—especially monarchy and aristocracy. The book's acumen derives from the Age of Enlightenment and has been linked to the Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke (even though Paine himself claimed to have never read this work).

The fuller development of this position seems to have been worked out one night in France after an evening spent with Thomas Jefferson, and possibly Lafayette, discussing a pamphlet by the Philadelphia conservative James Wilson on the proposed federal constitution.

Reformation of the English government

Rights of Man concludes in proposing practical reformations of English government such as a written constitution composed by a national assembly, in the American mould; the elimination of aristocratic titles, because democracy is incompatible with primogeniture, which leads to the despotism of the family; a national budget without allotted military and war expenses; lower taxes for the poor, and subsidised education for them; and a progressive income tax weighted against wealthy estates to prevent the re-emergence of a hereditary aristocracy.

Aristocracy

Principally, Rights of Man opposes the idea of hereditary government—the belief that dictatorial government is necessary, because of man's corrupt, essential nature. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Edmund Burke says that true social stability arises if the nation's poor majority are governed by a minority of wealthy aristocrats, and that lawful inheritance of power (wealth, religious, governing) ensured the propriety of political power being the exclusive domain of the nation's élite social class—the nobility.

Rights of Man denounces Burke's assertion of the nobility's inherent hereditary wisdom; countering the implication that a nation has not a right to form a Government for governing itself. Paine refutes Burke's definition of Government as "a contrivance of human wisdom". Instead, Paine argues that Government is a contrivance of man, and it follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights to govern cannot compose a Government—because the wisdom to govern cannot be inherited.

Heredity

Edmund Burke's counter-revolutionary Reflections on the French Revolution delineates the legitimacy of aristocratic government to the 1688 Parliamentary resolution declaring William and Mary of Orange—and their heirs—to be the true rulers of England. Paine puts forward two arguments against this view. Firstly, he argues that "Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it." Secondly, Paine counters that the institution of monarchy should not be historically traced from 1688, but from 1066, when William of Normandy forcibly imposed his Norman rule upon Englishmen.

Thomas Paine's intellectual influence is perceptible in the two great political revolutions of the eighteenth century. He dedicated Rights of Man to George Washington and to the Marquis de Lafayette, acknowledging the importance of the American and the French revolutions in his formulating the principles of modern democratic governance.

Thus, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) can be encapsulated so: (1) Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility; (2) The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression; and (3) The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority, which is not expressly derived from it.

These capsulations are akin to the self-evident truths concept that the U.S. Declaration of Independence expresses.

Welfare

In the closing chapters of Rights of Man, Paine addresses the condition of the poor and outlines a detailed social welfare proposal predicated upon the redirection of government expenditures. From the onset, Paine asserts all citizens have an inherent claim to welfare. Paine declares welfare is not charity, but an irrevocable right. Paine's understanding of welfare seemingly follows his idea of political government. He notes, "Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured". In congruence with his previous works, Paine emphasizes the compatibility between individual rights and societal wellbeing. He fervently contends that crippling poverty undermines the rights of an individual, and consequently the legitimacy of government. Not surprisingly then, Paine staunchly opposed and criticizes the English Poor Laws in place at the time, claiming the laws are highly ineffective and primitive in nature. Paine critiques the societal conditions promulgated by the Poor Laws saying, "When in countries that are called civilized, we see age going to the workhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong with the system of government". He argues for their complete abolition, and in their place the enactment of a welfare program that assists the young, old, and struggling individuals. Paine's welfare proposal is pillared by education and tax reform. Paine contends the poor population consists mostly of children and the elderly, who are unable to participate in the workforce. In addition to the elderly and children, Paine also concedes that there are still some others rendered poor from the economic burden of tax and children. In accordance with his belief that charity as a natural right, Paine presumes only republican or democratic regimes can effectively carry out successful welfare programs. Though Paine does not directly condone or promote up-rise against the British monarchy, and utilizes rather subdued rhetoric in comparison to his other controversial works, revolutionary currents run beneath the surface of the text.

An implication that arises from Paine's social welfare reformation is cost. Paine observes, at the time of his writing, England's rough population to be about 7 million people. He also supposes that around one-fifth of the population is poor. The number of poor then, according to Paine's estimations, would total around 1,400,000 people, in need of support. Paine contended the remedy for financing such a large welfare endeavor would be to cut military expenditures of the state and redirect the funds towards the people of the state. Paine argued that since the age of revolution rendered a new era of peace, the government no longer need devote so many resources toward monarchical wars. Instead, Paine suggests, the surplus of tax revenue could be reintegrated back into society with the formation of a welfare program. He also estimates that near £4 million, out of £17 million in total tax revenues from customs and excise duties, could be salvaged from the government's expenditure and redirected and redistributed to the people of the nation. Paine questions, "Is it, then, better that the lives of one hundred and forty thousand aged persons be rendered comfortable, or that a million a year of public money be expended on any one individual, and him often of the most worthless or insignificant character?" Paine concludes that by his model £3,640,000 will be remitted to the poor.

Youth and education

Education is a foundational cornerstone of Paine's welfare plan. Paine claims, "A nation under a well-regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed". Paine largely focuses on educating the youth population. He contends that, educating children will ultimately compel the betterment of society holistically. Paine insists a proactive social welfare system that educates the country's youth, will act as a preventive measure, and engender greater knowledge amongst the population. He explains that poor children and young people are typically deprived of equal access to education. Poor children coming from poor families are often forced to seek apprenticeships and work, and are thus subsequently robbed of the ability to pursue education. Poverty then, becomes cyclical in nature and undoubtedly increases with time. Lack of education amongst the young population, Paine asserts, will also lead to increased violence and crime. To combat this problem, Paine proposes a remission of taxes to poor families; £4 a year for every child under the age of 14, granting the parents of the children send them to school. For 630,000 children, Paine estimates the cost to be £2,520,000. Paine states, "By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater". In the same vein, Paine also suggest women should receive maternity benefits immediately after the birth of a child.

Elderly

Paramount to Paine's welfare plan, is care of the elderly population. Paine divides age into two classes; the first he calls "the approach of age" class and the second "old age" class. Those classified as being in the "approach of age" group are over fifty years of age yet under 60 years of age, while "old age" commences at the age of sixty years old. Paine notes that though individuals in the approach of age class retain their mental faculties, the decline of their physical health limits their ability to work, which consequently affects their earnings. Those of old age, Paine declares, are fully incapable of laborious work and are ultimately driven to work themselves to death in current society. Paine resolves to pay approach of age persons the sum of £6 per annum out of the surplus taxes, and to pay old age persons £10 per annum. Figuring there will be 70,000 persons in the approach of age class and 70,000 persons in the old age class, Paine estimates the expense to be 1,120,000.

Proposal conditions

In tandem with redirecting government expenditures, Paine suggests the development of what some may call a "workhouse", or place of employment for poor people. Paine's describes the workhouse as being a building, or buildings, with the capability of holding a minimum of 6,000 people. In these buildings, operating businesses would indiscriminately accept applications, so that every city citizen could find employment. In order for Paine's plan to be carried out effectively, he cites some conditions that must be met. He resolves that each person seeking employment from these workhouses must stay in the program for a minimum of three months; however, during their residency all employees shall receive wholesome meals, warm lodgings, receive a proportional stipend for the work they've completed, and may work as long or as little as they deem appropriate. The asylum, Paine declares, would assist any persons in temporary distress and would serve around 24,000 people a year. To finance the development of this project, Paine suggest using the revenue from the state's coal tax. Paine states that at the time he is writing, the tax revenue is used to support the Duke of Richmond. Paine ultimately finds this particular deplorable, and calls for the reallocation of coal tax funds back to the people.

Paine concludes his section on welfare by listing the eight central tenets of his welfare proposal, or what he calls the "enumerating particulars", which are as follows:

1. Abolish 2 million poor rates.
2. Provision for 252,000 poor families.
3. Education for 1,030,000 children.
4. Comfortable provision for 140,000 aged persons.
5. Donation of 20 shillings each for 50,000 births.
6. Donation of 20 shillings each for 20,000 marriages.
7. Allowance of £20,000 for the funeral expenses of deceased travelers far from home.
8. Employment at all times for the casual poor in cities.

Analysis and public impact

According to Mark Philp, "In many respects Rights of Man is a disordered mix of narrative, principled argument, and rhetorical appeal—betraying the composite materials Paine used and the speed with which it was composed."

It was quickly reprinted and widely circulated, with copies being read aloud in inns and coffee houses, so that by May some 50,000 copies were said to be in circulation. Of the 300 or more pamphlets which the revolution controversy spawned, Rights of Man was the first to seriously damage Burke's case and to restore credit to the French both in Britain and America.

The publication of Rights of Man caused a furore in England; Paine was tried in absentia, and convicted of seditious libel against the Crown, but was unavailable for hanging, being in France and never returning to England. (Sir Archibald Macdonald, 1st Baronet served as the prosecutor.)

Thomas Paine was not the only advocate of the rights of man or the only author of a work titled Rights of Man. The working-class radical, Thomas Spence, is among the first, in England, to use the phrase as a title. His 1775 lecture, usually titled The Rights of Man, and his later The Rights of Infants, offer a proto-geoist take on political philosophy mirroring Paine's work Agrarian Justice. Paine's acquaintance Mary Wollstonecraft, whom he met via their common publisher, wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Men as one of the very first responses to Burke's attack on Richard Price. Her work was in print in December 1790, and was well reviewed. She extended the arguments in the book for which she is best remembered, the 1792 A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.