Tag: civil rights

Taking Rights Seriously

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
Mankind would be no more justified
In silencing that one person,
Than he, if he had the power,
Would be justified in silencing mankind.”

— John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The world is filled with self-evident truths — truisms — that philosophers, lawyers and judges know need not be proven. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Two plus two equals four. A cup of boiling hot coffee sitting on a table in a room, the temperature of which is 70 degrees Fahrenheit, will eventually cool down.

These examples, of which there are legion, are not true because we believe they are true. They are true essentially and substantially. They are true whether we accept their truthfulness or not. Of course, recognizing a universal truth acknowledges the existence of an order of things higher than human laws, certainly higher than government.

The generation of Americans that fought the war of secession against England — according to Professor Murray Rothbard, the last moral war Americans waged — understood the existence of truisms and recognized their origin in nature.

The most famous of these recognitions was Thomas Jefferson’s iconic line in the Declaration of Independence that self-evident truths come not from persons but from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Thus, “All Men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a truism.

Jefferson’s neighbor and colleague, James Madison, understood this as well when he wrote the Bill of Rights so as to reflect that human rights do not come from the government. They come from our individual humanity.

Natural Rights

Thus, your right to be alive, to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to shake your fist in the tyrant’s face by petitioning the government, your right to defend yourself and repel tyrants using and carrying the same weapons as the government does, your right to be left alone, to own property, to travel or to stay put — these natural aspects of human existence are natural rights that come from our humanity and for the exercise of which all rational persons yearn.

This is the natural rights understanding of Jefferson’s Declaration and Madison’s Bill of Rights, to the latter of which all in government have sworn allegiance and deference.

A right is not a privilege. A right is an indefeasible personal claim against the whole world. It does not require a government permission slip. It does not require preconditions except the ability to reason. It does not require the approval of family or neighbors.

Keep reading

Why Trump’s Anti-DEI Order Is Both Radical and Rooted in Civil Rights Law

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, convened a panel of civil rights leaders last month to assail President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity.” The so-called anti-DEI order, Morial claimed, was an effort to “reverse the gains of the last seventy years.”

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are aligned with American values,” declared Morial. To any critics claiming that DEI represents “some sort of preference program” that “divides Americans,” Morial scoffed. “We say, absolutely not.” Morial then argued that the organizations gathered there would crusade to protect DEI and “the notion that everyone has an equal opportunity.”

This response of the civil rights establishment was more than simply a vow of resistance to the Trump order; it reflected opposition to a long-cresting sea change in racial politics in America.

In 1963, the Urban League was one of the groups that participated in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, where King envisioned a nation for his children not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” During this period, non-white Americans faced legal and cultural barriers to full participation in civic life, from school segregation to rampant discrimination in employment and housing opportunities.

Keep reading

Taranaki Maunga becomes a legal person as treaty settlement passes into law

The Treaty of Waitangi settlement for Taranaki Maunga passed its second and third reading in Parliament on Thursday.

Around 400 people from the eight iwi of Taranaki – Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi, Ngāruahine, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Taranaki iwi and Te Ātiawa – were at Parliament to see the settlement become law.

The Crown profoundly apologised for its confiscation of Taranaki Maunga and almost half a million hectares (1.2 million acres) of Taranaki lands in 1865.

As part of the settlement Mt Egmont will cease to be an official geographic name. The name of the national park, currently called Egmont National Park, will become Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki (meaning the highly regarded and treasured lands of Taranaki), while the highest peak will be Taranaki Maunga.

The park and its contents will be vested as a legal person, its peaks will be named Te Kāhui Tupua – so the park will effectively own itself. But Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi, a collective of both iwi and Crown representatives, will manage the park and develop plans which will be approved by the Conservation Minister.

Keep reading

Dismantling the Bill of Rights Is No Solution

After the recent school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, the usual suspects immediately called for more “gun control.”  Joe Biden’s White House released a statement demanding these additional infringements upon Americans’ Second Amendment rights: “Universal background checks.  A national red flag law.  A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”  (The president conveniently ignored reports that the teenaged attacker used a 9mm pistol.)  Democrat Congressman Mark Pocan insists that gun manufacturers be held responsible for the school shooter’s violence.  Disgraced former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe (who was rewarded for leaking classified information and lying to federal agents) wants “legislation that changes the context of gun ownership” in the United States and new requirements that “eliminate the ability” of Americans “to purchase guns without a background check.”

So the departing president wants executive authority to determine which Americans enjoy Second Amendment protections.  The congressman from Wisconsin wants to hold manufacturers criminally and civilly liable for the misdeeds of others.  And the former acting director of the FBI wants to fundamentally transform the “context of gun ownership.”  What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?  

If we were still a country that took loyalty oaths seriously, it would be worth noting that all three of these men raised their hands and solemnly swore to protect and defend the Bill of Rights.  As retired FBI supervisory special agent Arthur P. Meister once wrote, “all public office oaths require true faith and allegiance to principles of lawful authority derived from the Constitution.”  An official’s “deference” to the Bill of Rights “must trump all other promises and commitments” precisely because “the public elects, empowers, and allows a select few to govern many.”  The U.S. government cannot expect public trust if its officers regularly violate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution.  Accordingly, if faith in the U.S. government is historically weak, then government officials should consider their disregard for the Bill of Rights the proximate cause.

Unconstitutional attempts to confiscate Americans’ firearms have become such a regular reaction to mass shootings that lawmakers act as if erasing the Second Amendment were no big deal.  “Oh, what’s the harm?” they dismissively suggest on cable television.  “It’s just an annoying little right.  It was written, like, three centuries ago…by white supremacists!  And if it saves even one child, it’s worth it!”  

It does not take much mental acuity to recognize how dangerous the “Let’s do it for the children” exception to the Constitution is in practice.  To save the children from “misinformation,” we must embrace censorship!  To save the children from “hate,” we must snoop on their private text messages and their parents’ bank accounts!  To save the children from inequality and State-sponsored religion, we must discriminate by race and ban school prayer!  To save the children from “global warming,” we must redistribute wealth and ration life-saving energies!  “Doing it for the children” makes it super-easy to dispense with the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments!  

Keep reading

Smith urges Poilievre to amend Canadian Bill of Rights for broader civil liberties 

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called on federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to promise further free speech and other rights protections at the national level as her government prepares to amend the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Smith encouraged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to strengthen protections that may be missing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“I think that we should stop looking at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the full, comprehensive expression of all rights and freedoms we are endowed with,” said Smith.

The premier said she believed Poilievre could make these amendments if he’s elected prime minister without having a huge constitutional discussion. 

“I think we’re entering an era now where people are demanding that their governments respect them and not treat them the way they were treated during that terrible Covid era,” said Smith. 

Smith made the comments at True North Nation in Calgary on Saturday.

Keep reading

Joe Biden Falls Apart at NAACP Dinner: “I Got Involved in Civil Rights When I Was 15!”

Joe Biden on Sunday evening pandered to black voters at the annual NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Detroit, Michigan.

Joe “you ain’t black” Biden is losing support among black voters so he spent the last several days traveling to key swing states lying to blacks.

Meanwhile, President Trump has more than doubled his support among black voters.

As usual, Biden’s speech was full of lies and gaffes.

“Because of your vote, it’s the only reason I’m standing here as President of the United States of America,” Biden said.

Biden told the crowd of blacks one of his favorite lies: “I got involved in civil rights when I was 15!”

Keep reading

The Government Wants to Play God. What Does That Mean for Our Freedoms?

The government wants to play god.

It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection.

Abortion may still be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more at play.

In the 50-plus years since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, the government has come to believe that it not only has the power to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights in the eyes of the law but it also has the authority to deny those rights to an American citizen.

This is how the abortion debate has played into the police state’s hands: by laying the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights.

Despite the Supreme Court having overturned its earlier rulings recognizing abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government continues to play fast and loose with the lives of the citizenry all along the spectrum of life.

Take a good, hard look at the many ways in which Americans are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

American families killed by errant SWAT team raids in the middle of the night are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Disabled individuals who are being strip searched, handcuffed, arrested and “diagnosed” by police as dangerous or mentally unstable merely because they stutter and walk unevenly are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Unarmed citizens who are tasered or shot by police for daring to hesitate, stutter, move a muscle, flee or disagree in any way with a police order are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

American citizens subjected to government surveillance whereby their phone calls are being listened in on, their mail and text messages read, their movements tracked and their transactions monitored are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Individuals whose DNA has been forcibly collected and entered into federal and state law enforcement databases whether or not they have been convicted of any crime are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Drivers whose license plates are being scanned, uploaded to a police database and used to map their movements, whether or not they are suspected of any crime, are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Protesters and activists who are being labeled domestic terrorists and extremists and accused of hate crimes for speaking freely are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

Hard-working Americans whose bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash are seized by police (operating according to asset forfeiture schemes that provide profit incentives for highway robbery) are being denied their rights under the Constitution.

So, what is the common denominator here?

Keep reading

ATF Agent Stops Gun Sale Over Marijuana Odor And DOJ Argues Cannabis Consumers Don’t Have 2nd Amendment Rights 

Second Amendment advocates are criticizing a pair of recent developments around marijuana and firearms—issues they say underscore the need for further reform.

Last month during a routine audit of a gun dealer, a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigator reportedly ordered the store to stop the sale of a pistol because the investigator claimed the would-be buyer smelled of marijuana.

“I wasn’t high,” the prospective buyer told the Second Amendment Foundation, according to the outlet Ammoland, which referred to the individual only as Daniel. “None of this makes any sense to me.”

Daniel had already filed federal paperwork saying he was eligible to own a firearm and had passed a background check for the handgun, according to the report. When he went to pick it up at a Plant City, Florida store, however, the ATF industry operations investigator reportedly halted the sale.

ATF spokesman Jason Medina acknowledged that the smell of marijuana could have been from exposure to second-hand smoke and not an indication that the gun buyer himself had consumed cannabis.

“That’s true,” Medina told Ammoland.

Meanwhile in a federal appeals court case, the Department of Justice argued in a filing earlier this month that marijuana users “are more likely than ordinary citizens to misuse firearms,” likening them to “the mentally ill” as well as “infants, idiots, lunatics, and felons.”

Keep reading

Hospital Pays Job Applicant Who Refused Mandated Flu Shot

A hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., has agreed to pay a settlement to a job applicant who had been offered a position, but then was arbitrarily rejected because he declined to take a flu shot hospital officials demanded.

News of the settlement comes from Liberty Counsel.

The fight involved Trinity Health Grand Rapids, which previously was known as Mercy Health St. Mary’s. The resolution includes a consent decree that allows paying of some $50,000 to the worker who was rejected.

The case originally was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and charged the hospital improperly denied a job applicant’s request for a religious exemption to the flu shot.

The requirement for such shots later was dropped by the hospital, which agreed to train leaders on religious rights in addition to paying the settlement.

“According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, even though the hospital’s former flu shot policy allowed for a religious exemption, the hospital determined the applicant’s articulated religious beliefs were ‘insufficient’ to grant the exemption and denied it without an explanation. Trinity Health, which had made a conditional job offer to the applicant, then rescinded that job offer and did not give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns with his request.”

The EEOC accused the corporation of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The report explained federal law insists that employers make reasonable accommodations for religious employees – unless those accommodations create an “undue hardship” on the company.

Keep reading

Ohio prosecutors broke rules to win convictions and got away with it

Ernie Haynes never imagined that taking care of his three grandsons after his daughter’s drug overdose death would turn him into a felon at the hands of a longtime Ohio prosecutor known to sidestep the rules intended to protect a defendant’s rights in criminal trials.

A week after his daughter died in December 2017, the court granted temporary custody of the children to their biological father, a man Haynes said also struggled with drug addiction. When Haynes refused to give up his grandchildren, Wood County authorities arrested him and charged him with six counts of abduction. The action sparked a five-year legal battle to clear his name.

“We never got to grieve … because immediately we were plunged into this hell,” said Haynes’ wife, Marcella Haynes.

Ernie Haynes, 59, didn’t know it, but the assistant prosecutor who would try his case, Thomas Matuszak, had a track record of repeatedly violating legal standards to sway juries at trials and win convictions, according to court findings. He would do the same in Haynes’ case.

And it wouldn’t be the last.

Matuszak is one of about 100 prosecutors across Ohio who the courts found had violated standards meant to preserve a defendant’s civil rights in criminal trials, an investigation by Columbia Journalism Investigations, NPR and member station WVXU in Cincinnati, and The Ohio Newsroom found. He is one of 13 who did so more than once. Together, these 13 prosecutors accounted for nearly one-third of the 104 cases in the state where courts found that prosecutors acted improperly.

Keep reading