121–130 of 215 posts
I was a bit surprised by the fact that all of the judges' opinions, which are embedded in the article, were in English. But it turns out that English is the official language of the Indian Supreme Court, and the court has even gone so far as to rule that it need not provide a Hindi translation of its rulings: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation... It seems kind of bizarre to me that as an Ame…
I was a bit surprised by the fact that all of the judges' opinions, which are embedded in the article, were in English. But it turns out that English is the official language of the Indian Supreme Court, and the court has even gone so far as to rule that it need not provide a Hindi translation of its rulings: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation... It seems kind of bizarre to me that as an Ame…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice I think the positive negative distinction is somewhat pointless. All rights, regardless of their "nature" require enforcement and consistent interpretation and neither of those things come for free. Part of the problem for Americans is that they have two definitions of rights. There's the ones in the Bill of Rights, which are phrased in a negative way. And there's those in the Declaration of Independence,…
I’m not opposed to positive rights, but I’d rather we call them something else so as not to erode the special nature of regular rights. In Europe/UK, the right to housing is often mentioned. That is a completely different can of worms. A state can try and fail to provide everyone access to housing. This is different to free speech. There is no such thing as well intentioned failure to protect speech.
They aren't special, though. The distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights completely melts away when you ask yourself who has substantive access and who merely has formal access to their rights.
For example, free speech. You can't exercise your right to free speech when you're dead. Everybody may have formal access (access on paper) to free speech but some people have far greater substantive access due to their socioeconomic status. A poor person will suppress their right to free speech in exchange for a job so they can buy food. Their employer, on the other hand, can say whatever they want without the risk of being fired. Same formal access, different substantive access.
This exercise works for any right. Perhaps the most obvious one is the right to a fair trial. It would be laughable if it weren't so horrific. Every day, countless people have their lives ruined by the criminal "justice" system because they cannot afford the best lawyer. Wealthy people simply do not have this problem. A person with a lot of wealth has far greater substantive access to a fair trial than the average person.
I was a bit surprised by the fact that all of the judges' opinions, which are embedded in the article, were in English. But it turns out that English is the official language of the Indian Supreme Court, and the court has even gone so far as to rule that it need not provide a Hindi translation of its rulings: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation... It seems kind of bizarre to me that as an Ame…
When the US Pentagon website has been hacked quite recently, some in this Government think they can make the Aadhaar data completely secure.