ii. Right to personal freedom
The term ‘Personal freedom’ connotes absence of an external agent who exercises control over our actions. In its literal sense it means absence of constraint. It includes freedom to form an assembly, of speech and expression, of movement, of residence etc. However, the gamut of personal freedom is limited; it can be enjoyed only to a certain extent as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. If no constraint in exercise of personal freedom is observed, then there will be no guarantee that anyone would be able to enjoy these rights.
Para 3 of the Preamble of ICCPR and ICESR states-
“Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom…. Can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights…” Article 29 of UDHR formulates that the limitations on personal freedom are to be “determined by law” solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of “morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” Thus, as per UDHR, restrictions imposed on personal freedoms must be
…show more content…
Article 19(4) imposes restrictions on this clause of Article 19. These restrictions conform with the restrictions imposed in Article 22(2) of ICCPR. Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution entrust the right to move freely ,and reside and settle anywhere in the territory of India. However, Article 19(5) allows states to make any laws in interest of general public and thereby imposes a restriction on these rights. Article 13 of UDHR and Article 12(1) of ICCPR provide for these rights whereas Article 12(3) provides for reasonable restrictions which can be imposed on their
Patterson pinpoints three different variations of freedom. Personal freedom is defined as giving a person a sense that, in one aspect, he or she is not forced or controlled by another person into doing something preferred. In addition, within another aspect, one can do as one pleases within limits of that other person wish to do the same. Patterson refers to Sovereignal or organic freedom as basically the authority to act as one pleases, without respect for others, or simply the capacity to enforce one’s will on another. Civic freedom is defined as the capacity of adult members of a community to partake in its life and authority. (Walton Jr & Smith, 2015)
freedom as long as one does not disturb others in their state of nature; in this
According to the Collins Dictionary, “freedom” is defined as “the state of being allowed to do what you want to do”(“freedom”). The definition of freedom is simple, but make yourself free is not easy. Concerning about some common cases which will take away your freedom, such as a time-cost high education attainment. In this essay, I shall persuade that everyone should try his or her best to insist on pursuing freedom. For the individual, it appears that only if you have your personal freedom, can you have a dream; for a country, it seems that only if the country is free, can the country develop; for mankind, it looks like that only if people has their own pursuit of freedom, can their thoughts evolve.
Declaration of Human Rights: Dignity and Justice for All of Us. Accessed on October 29,
Before any legislation could be implemented, a definition of human rights had to be compiled and accepted. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was approved in 1948 by th...
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Amnesty International USA - Protect Human Rights. 19 May 2009 .
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” (Article 2, Declaration of Human Rights, )
“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights is not defended with maximum determination.” -- Pope John Paul II
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial. It is not enough to feel that freedom is our basic right, but to understand why it is so important, and why freedom can not be replaced by the specific ends one might think it is means to. I will argue, that freedom does have independent value. First I will talk about the non-independent value of freedom, and look at the different independent values, then concentrate on the non-specific instrumental value. I am going to look at claims where Dworkin and Kymlicka were wrong, and evaluate Ian Carter’s standpoint.
Declaration of Human Rights: Dignity and Justice for All of Us. Accessed on October 29,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71.
Many authors have addressed the concept of true freedom in their work; in letters, essays, short stories, and memoirs. The definition of true freedom has been debated, but there are a few aspects of true freedom that almost all authors seem to agree on – safety, the ability to freely express oneself, and the right to live without been oppressed by the government. If one of these principles is missing, no person can achieve true freedom.
On December 10th 1948, the General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion. A general definition of human rights is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have