A civil right is an
enforceable right or privilege,
which if interfered with by
another gives rise to an action for injury.
Discrimination occurs when
the civil rights of an individual are denied
or interfered with because of
their membership in a particular group or class
Those who take civil rights for
granted risk losing them
SU
speaker warns about complacency
By Damiane Ricks
dricks@theadvocate.com
Advocate staff writer
BAKER -- Those who take for granted the civil
rights won through the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. and others risk losing
those rights, Raymond Lockett, chairman of the Southern University History
Department, warned during a King observance Sunday.
Lockett reminded the residents who gathered Sunday at the Baker Branch
Library of the old maxim that to forget history is to risk repeating it.
Lockett's history lesson recounted King's efforts to eliminate
discrimination, efforts that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This
legislation prohibited discrimination based on race, religion, age or sex in
public facilities, in government and in employment.
<snip>
Source: http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/011705/new_compla001.shtml
From Cornell
University Law School - The Legal Information
Institute.........
civil rights: an overview
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege,
which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples
of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote,
freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places.
Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or
interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.
Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race,
sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation,
national origin and in some instances sexual preference.
The most important expansion of civil rights in the
United States was the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The
Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States.
See U.S.
Const. amend. XIII. In response to the 13th Amendment, various states
enacted "black codes" which were intended to limit the civil rights of the newly
free slaves. In 1868 the 14th Amendment was passed to counter the "black codes"
and ensure that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States . . . [or] deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
See U.S.
Const. amend. XIV. Congress was also given the power by section five of the
Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed for its enforcement. During the
"reconstruction era" that followed Congress enacted numerous civil rights
statutes. Many of these statutes are still in force today and protect
individuals from discrimination and from the deprivation of their civil rights.
Section 1981 of Title 42 (Equal Rights Under the Law) protects individuals from
discrimination based on race in making and enforcing contracts, participating in
lawsuits, and giving evidence. See 42 U.S.C. §
1981.Other statutes, derived from acts of the reconstruction era, that
protect against discrimination include: Civil Action For Deprivation of Rights
(See 42
U.S.C. § 1983) Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights (See 42 U.S.C. § 1985);
Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens (See 18 U.S.C. § 241);
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, (See 18 U.S.C. § 242); The
Jurisdictional Statue for Civil Rights Cases (See 28 U.S.C. § 1443);
Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. § 1994).
The most prominent civil rights legislation since
reconstruction is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Decisions of the Supreme Court,
at the time limited Congressional enforcement of the 14th Amendment to state
action. (Since 1964 the Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the 14th
Amendment in some situations to individuals discriminating on their own).
Therefore, in order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its
power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964
under . Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in
public establishments that had a connection to interstate commerce or was
supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.
Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels,
motels, trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of
entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent
legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in
public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the civil
rights act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is
engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing
with employment discrimination. See Employment
Discrimination.
The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a
crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights. A single Supreme
Court ruling can change the very nature of a right throughout the entire
country. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress
enacts civil rights legislation, as occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The federal courts were/are crucial in mandating and supervising school
desegregation programs and other programs established to rectify state or local
discrimination.
State constitutions, statutes and municipal ordinances
provide further protection of civil rights. See, e.g., New York's Civil Rights Law.
The existence of civil rights and liberties are
recognized internationally by numerous agreements and declarations. Often these
rights are included in agreements in which nations pledge themselves to the
general protection of Human Rights. The United States has recently adhered to
the most notable international agreement on civil rights: The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html
What Makes An Animal
Care Or Use Group Any Different Than Any Other Group?
Are Animal Care And
Use Groups Being Targeted For Discrimination Against Their Civil
Rights?
Are The Civil Rights
Of Animal Care Or Use Groups Any Different Than Any Other
Group?
Does The Very Idea Of
Animal Rights Strip Away Civil Rights?
Is The Premise Of
Animal Rights And Animal Rights Law Constitutional In
Itself?
.......We are engaged in a gradual process of
forcing the industry into terminal decline.........
Could We Call
Animal Rights,
Discrimination
And The Imposition Of The Wishes
Of One
Group Over The Civil Rights Of Another Group?
Do Your Civil
Rights Disappear When Animal Rights Appear?
A dog's life ain't what it used to be
Animal rights protesters want 'brutal' greyhound racing
outlawed - and are targeting the punters to bring about its downfall
By Jonathan Brown
17 January 2005
.........Protesters believe that, after the
fox-hunting ban passes into law, it can only be a matter of time until they can
bring about the end of greyhound racing - an industry worth more than £2.5bn a
year.........
........But the animal rights
protesters aren't just setting their sights on Britain. In Ireland, where 80 per
cent of the puppies that enter the industry are bred, protesters are claiming
that former racing animals are being sold to mainland Europe for use in
vivisection or to take part in hunting or coursing. The industry has recently
been targeted by the Animal Liberation Front. In November, activists vandalised
part of Shelbourne Park racing track. A statement released afterwards said the
action was "in protest at the slaughter of thousands of greyhounds at the hands
of Bord na gCon (the Irish Greyhound Board)... Actions against greyhound tracks
will continue until racing is ended." It signed off with the ALF slogan "Till
all are free." The previous month, Kerry Foods' billboards at Limerick Greyhound
Stadium were damaged. Claiming responsibility, ALF said: "Message to the
greyhound industry in Ireland: we will be back until Kerry Foods stop sponsoring
animal abuse."
In addition, animal rights supporters want to highlight the
plight of greyhounds in Australia, from where, they claim, many former racing
animals are being shipped to south-east Asia for experimentation. In Britain,
they are calling for an end to the use of fallen dogs for dissection.
The equation is simple, Peters says. "We are engaged in a
gradual process of forcing the industry into terminal decline. When there a
fewer races, there will fewer greyhounds bred and then there will be fewer
killed. It is as simple as that.".........
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=601444
EAST MACHIAS, Maine — A competition to see who can
kill the most coyotes was under way Friday in eastern Maine, despite protests
from a humane group and request by Gov. John Baldacci not to go
ahead.
Twenty-three teams turned out as the two-day event got under way
amid unseasonably warm temperatures, said Mike Look, an organizer of the derby
and member of the Washington County Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Club.
Look said he sees little difference between the Maine event and
normal hunting of coyotes, which are viewed as a major cause of a deer
population decline Down East. "It's a huge sport nationwide," Look said. "It's a
chip off the iceberg of what happens every day."
But opponents say the
event does nothing to manage the coyote population and reopens old wounds from a
recent bear-hunting referendum.
Organizers offered prizes for the most
coyotes killed in different categories, such as calling, baiting and hunting
with dogs. Look said he would be surprised if hunters killed as many as a dozen
animals.
Days before the event, the Humane Society of the United States
sent a letter protesting the event to Gov. John Baldacci asking him to use his
influence to call off the event.
"We think that any derby that involves
wanton killing of animals is un-called for," Hillary Twining, New England
coordinator of the HSUS, said Friday from the group's Vermont office. She said
the derby is "not sound wildlife management" and "has no place in the Maine
hunting tradition."
Baldacci also finds the practice inhumane, said
spokesman Lee Umphrey.
At the governor's request, Deputy Commissioner
Paul Jacques of the state Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department asked the
sporting group not to go ahead with its derby, saying it's not an effective way
to control the coyote population. He offered state biologists' assistance in
rebuilding the region's deer herd.
Organizers decided to go ahead anyway,
noting that some participants were coming long distances and it was too late to
tell them the event was canceled.
The humane society's Twining said she's
concerned the derby will renew antagonism between hunting and non-hunting groups
barely two months after a statewide referendum to decide whether to ban baiting,
hounding and trapping of bears.
Maine voters rejected the proposed
ban.
And in late 2003, Maine's coyote snaring program was suspended
following appeals to state officials by humane groups and others following
emotional testimony to the Legislature.
Look said the derby is to make up
in a small part for the snaring program, in which hundreds of coyotes were taken
in Washington County. The former teacher said he founded the sponsoring fish and
wildlife club specifically to rebuild Washington County's deer population, which
has crashed since the 1970s.
One of the reasons of the decline, Look
said, is coyote attacks on fawns.
"Our deer population is zero to two per
square mile," Look said. "If we had a normal deer population, this wouldn't be
happening."