Home About us Products Services Contact us Bookmark
:: wikimiki.org ::
Gay Rights

Gay rights

The gay rights movement comprises a collection of loosely aligned civil rights groups, human rights groups, support groups and political activists seeking acceptance, tolerance and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and related causes. Although it is typically referred to as the gay rights movement, members also promote the rights of groups of individuals who do not necessarily identify as being gay - see the article Homosexuality and Transgender. These views are considered controversial by some, and the gay rights movement is opposed by a variety of individuals and groups including some religious and political (traditionally though not exclusively conservative) groups. Despite this controversy, many of these views have been taking up by mainstream professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association. This is in part due to overwhelming scientific evidence in support of these views. Anti-gay-rights activists (for example, NARTH), however, say that these mainstream institutions have succumbed to political pressure rather than relying on a rational examination of the facts. An example that is often cited is the controversy over the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. In 1973, homosexuality was removed and replaced with "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" in the DSM-II; this was changed to "Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality" in the DSM-III and was removed entirely from the DSM-IV. Although it is difficult to generalize, given the wide range of opinions and beliefs within the gay rights movement, in general most members agree upon the following points:
- in tolerance to all people regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression;
- that all people deserve equal rights and parity in law regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression;
- that homophobia (the irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuals) as well as transphobia is dangerous, not just to gays and lesbians or transgender people, but to all members of society;
- views that consider homosexuality or gender variance to be negative (i.e. a sin or a perversion) are irrelevant, misguided or even outright malicious;
- that sexual orientation is innate and cannot be consciously changed, referring to homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality equally as unchangeable sexual orientations (although some queer theorists would take issue with certain parts of this argument)
- that gender identity is not a choice;
- that attempts to alter sexual orientation (see ex-gay, reparative therapy and gender identity) can be dangerous, misguided at best;
- that people should be free to express their sexual or gender identity without fear of reprisal and
- that homosexuality does not break down the fibers of the "traditional" family; "homophobia" does.

Gay rights by country

The gay rights movement arose in response to homophobic discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals. One of the first gay rights activists was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who lived in 19th century Germany. Ulrichs actively campaigned for the repeal of German anti-sodomy laws. The first mass gay rights activism movement was centered around Magnus Hirschfeld, Adolf Brand, Gustav Wyneken and Leontine Sagan, in pre-World War II Berlin, Germany. The gay rights movement in Germany was almost completely obliterated or exiled by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement (See: Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, Night of the Long Knives, and History of Gays during the Holocaust).

United Kingdom

In the early 1950s the police were actively enforcing the laws affecting homosexual men (some say this was a result of CIA pressure following the Burgess–Maclean spy scandal). This led to a number of high-profile arrests and trials. In particular, in 1953, Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood were arrested and charged with having committed specific acts of indecency with Edward McNally and John Reynolds; they were also accused of conspiring with Edward Montagu (the 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu) to commit these offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions gave his assurance that Reynolds and McNally would not be prosecuted in any circumstances. The trial of Edward Montagu, Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood began on 15 March 1954 in the hall of Winchester Castle. All three defendants were convicted. The Sunday Times published an article entitled "Law and Hypocrisy" on 28 March 1954 that dealt with this trial and its outcome. Soon after, on 10 April 1954, the New Statesman printed an article called "The Police and the Montagu Case". A month after the Montagu trial the Home Secretary agreed to appoint a committee to examine and report on the law covering homosexual offences. The official announcement in the House of Commons was made on 18 April 1954 by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth. In August 1954, the Home Office appointed a departmental committee of 15 men and women "to consider… the law and practice relating to homosexual offences and the treatment of persons convicted of such offences by the courts." The Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution was published on 3 September 1957 and recommended that "homosexual behavior between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence", finding that "homosexuality cannot legitimately be regarded as a disease, because in many cases it is the only symptom and is compatible with full mental health in other respects." In October 1957 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Geoffrey Fisher, spoke in support of the Wolfenden Report, saying that "There is a sacred realm of privacy… into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. This is a principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom, self-respect, and responsibility." The first parliamentary debate on the Wolfenden Report was initiated on 4 December 1957 by Frank Pakenham. Of the seventeen peers who spoke in the debate, eight broadly supported the recommendations in the Wolfenden Report. The Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, speaking for the government, doubted that there would be much public support for implementing the recommendations and stated that further research was required. In 1958 the Home Office asked sociologist Richard Hauser to survey homosexuality in Great Britain. One suggestion that arose from Hauser's work was that "the poor quality of the normal relationships between men and women in… society is responsible for much avoidable homosexuality". The Homosexual Law Reform Society was founded on 12 May 1958, mainly to campaign for the implementation of the Wolfenden Committee's recommendations. In 1965, in the House of Lords, Lord Arran proposed the decriminalization of homosexual acts. In 1966, Humphry Berkeley MP proposed the same in the House of Commons; he ascribed his defeat in the 1966 general election to the unpopularity of this action. However, in the new Parliament, the maverick Labour MP Leo Abse took up the issue and used his mastery of Parliamentary tactics to ensure that the Bill progressed. After almost 10 years of intense campaigning, the Sexual Offences Bill was put before parliament in 1967 in order to implement some of the Wolfenden Committee's recommendations. Lord Arran, a sponsor of the Bill, made the following remarks at the third reading in the Lords: :Because, of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend: :::"Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms." :My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road. I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men - for men they are. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 was passed, decriminalizing certain homosexual activities between adults but established a higher age of consent for homosexuals (21 at the time) and "in private" was interpreted strictly by the courts, being taken to exclude acts taking place in a room in a hotel, for example, and in private homes where a third person was present — even where that person was in a different room. Campaigning was therefore continued by organizations such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality and the Gay Liberation Front with the aim of attaining full equality. In 1973, Lord Arran got a bill to protect badgers enacted. It is said that his patience was tried by the experience; he allegedly remarked to a colleague, "There weren't so many supporting my Badgers' Bill as my Buggers' Bill!" to which another noble lord replied, "No! but then there aren't any badgers in the House of Lords, are there?" In 1979, the Home Office Policy Advisory Committee's Working Party report Age of Consent in relation to Sexual Offences recommended that the age of consent for homosexual offences should be 18. In February 1994 Conservative MP Edwina Currie tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to equalise the age of consent at 16. Many Labour MPs supported the amendment, including Tony Blair, who said: :"People are entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not entitled to use the criminal law to force that view upon others. :"A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality." Edwina Currie's amendment was defeated by 307 votes to 280. Those who voted for it included John Smith and Neil Kinnock, Paddy Ashdown and William Hague. Those voting against include David Blunkett and Ann Taylor. This vote was followed immediately by one on Sir Anthony Durant's amendment to lower the age of consent to 18. This was passed by 427 votes to 162, and supporters included Michael Howard and John Major. It was opposed by such MPs as John Redwood, Chris Patten, Michael Heseltine and John Gummer. An amendment tabled by Simon Hughes which was intended to equalise the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals at 17 was not voted upon. The Bill as a whole was given a second reading in the Lords by 290 votes to 247. Lord Longford then sought to reintroduce 21 as the minimum age in the Lords, but this was defeated by 176 votes to 113. An amendment by the deputy Labour leader in the House of Lords, Lord MacIntosh of Haringey, that would have equalised the age of consent at 16, was rejected by 245 votes to 71. In its decision of 1 July 1997 in the case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom, the European Commission of Human Rights found that Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated by a discriminatory age of consent, on the ground that there was no objective and reasonable justification for maintaining a higher minimum age for male homosexual acts. On 13 October 1997 the Government submitted to the European Court of Human Rights that it would in the summer of 1998 propose a Bill to Parliament for a reduction of the age of consent for homosexual acts from 18 to 16. In June 1998, the Crime and Disorder Bill was put before Parliament. Ann Keen proposed amendments that would lower the age of consent to 16. The House of Commons accepted these provisions with a majority of 207, but they were rejected by the House of Lords with a majority of 168. Subsequently, a Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was introduced on 16 December 1998 and, again, the equalisation of the age of consent was endorsed on 25 January 1999 by the House of Commons, but was rejected on 14 April 1999 by the House of Lords. Those campaigning against the amendment said they were simply acting to protect children. Baroness Young, the leader of the campaign against the amendment, said "Homosexual practices carry great health risks to young people." The government reintroduced the Bill in 1999 and threatened to use the Parliament Act to enact it regardless of the opinion of the Lords. The Lords rejected the bill again in November 2000. The Speaker of the House of Commons invoked the Parliament Act on Thursday 30 November 2000; the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 received Royal Assent a few hours later. An important step towards same-sex marriage was taken on the 18 November 2004, when the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was enacted, letting same-sex couples enter into a civil union with all the rights of full marriage. The first civil union was announced in The Times in early 2005 and will take place in Edinburgh, Scotland on 20th December 2005.

United States

In the United States, the first gay rights movement was the Chicago Society for Human Rights in 1924. The movement was influenced by the German gay rights movement, and was shut down by the local police within a few months. After the Second World War there were initial steps toward a gay rights movement with the formation of the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis and ONE, Inc. and the publications of Phil Andros in the years immediately following World War II. Also during this time frame Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published by Alfred Kinsey, a work which was one of the first to look scientifically at the subject of sexuality. Kinsey's incredible assertion, backed by a great deal of research, that approximately 10% of the male population (and about half that number among females) had, or would have, at least one overt homosexual experience during the course of their lifetime, was a dramatic departure from the prevailing beliefs of the time. Before its publication, homosexuality was not a topic of discussion, generally, but afterwards it began to appear even in mainstream publications such as Time Magazine, Life Magazine, and others. Despite the entry of the subject into mainstream consciousness very little actual change in the laws or mores of society was seen until the mid-1960s, the time the "Sexual Revolution" began. This was a time of major social upheaval in many social areas, including views of sexuality. These works, along with other changes in society such as huge migrations to the cities following the War, began to build gay communities in urban centers. Through this, gay people began to develop a sense of themselves as a minority group. While gay bars existed even in the early 20th century, they were very few, and often were the focus of regular raids by police. With the rise of the gay community, gay bars became more and more common, and the sense of gay identity strengthened during the 1950s and 1960s. Gay people became less and less willing to accept their status as social outcasts and criminals. However, they had little or no political and social power until the late 1960s, even though some states began invalidating their sodomy laws earlier, with Illinois being the first state to do so in 1962. However, the Stonewall riots of 1969 are considered to be the starting point for the modern gay rights movement in the USA, when all of these relatively underground changes reached a breaking point, and gay people began to organize on a large scale and demand legal and social recognition and equality. The aftermath of the Stonewall riots saw the creation of such groups as the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and the Gay Activists' Alliance (GAA) in New York City. The GLF's 'A Gay Manifesto' set out the aims for the fledgling gay liberation movement, and influential intellectual Paul Goodman published his The Politics of Being Queer (1969). Chapters of the GLF then spread to other countries. These groups would be the seeds for the various modern gay rights groups that campaign for equality in countries around the globe. In the 1970s many gay people moved to San Francisco, where they rapidly acquired considerable political influence, including getting one of their number, Harvey Milk, elected to the city's Board of Supervisors, a legislative chamber often known as a City Council in other municipalities. Milk was assassinated in 1978 along with the city's mayor, George Moscone. The first national gay rights march in the United States took place on October 14, 1979 in Washington, DC, involving perhaps as many 100,000 people. In the 21st century, defending homosexuals against anti-gay bias and gay-bashing and other forms of discrimination is a major element of American gay rights, often portrayed as intrinsic to human rights. Indeed, one of the most influential gay rights groups in the U.S. is called the Human Rights Campaign. The gay rights movement is often divided on ideological lines. Progressive gay rights organizations include the National Gay and Lesbian Task force (NGLTF), Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and various local gay community centers. Conservative gay rights organizations include the Log Cabin Republicans, the Independent Gay Forum and even some libertarian gay rights organizations have arisen such as Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty and the Outfront Libertarians. The movement has been successful in some areas. By the end of the 20th Century Sodomy laws were repealed or overturned in most American states, and those that still remained were ruled unconstitutional in the June 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Many companies and local governments have clauses in their nondiscrimination policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In some jurisdictions in the U.S., gay bashing is considered a hate crime and given a harsher penalty. The U.S. state of Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and the states of Vermont and Connecticut provide civil union as an alternative to marriage. However, in many states, laws and constitutional amendments have been passed forbidding any recognition of same-sex marriage. Virginia law, the most far-reaching, forbids recognition of any benefits similar to those of marriage between people of the same sex. Gay people are now permitted to adopt in some locations, although there are fewer locations where they may adopt children jointly with their partners. Other states have moved to ban gay adoption and foster care. In the cultural arena, similar changes have taken place. Positive and realistic gay characters appear in some television programs and movies, although stereotypes and negative depictions are still visible. The main opponents of the advances of the gay rights movement in the US have, in general, been the Christian right and other social conservatives, often under the aegis of the Republican Party. The Roman Catholic Church, or at least its hierarchy, has also been prominent among the movement's adversaries as opponents of gay marriage and same-sex acts. In the Roman Catholic Church, gay people themselves are not condemned, and are encouraged to live in celibacy, while the Church does condemn gay relationships and the sexual actions performed by gays. Regionally, opposition to the gay rights movement has been strongest in the Southern states. The United States has no federal law protecting against discrimination in employment by private sector employers based on sexual orientation. However, 16 states, the District of Columbia, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted such bans. As of November 2005, the states banning sexual orientation discrimination in private sector employment are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.[http://www.hrc.org/worknet/nd/states_ban_dso.asp]. Many of these laws also ban discrimination in other contexts, such as housing or public accommodation. A proposed bill to ban anti-gay employment discrimination nationwide, known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in the U.S. Congress, but its prospects of passage are not believed to be good in the current Republican-controlled Congress. On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by antigay animus. On November 7, 2003 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in Blanchflower v. Blanchflower that sex between people of the same gender, one of whom is married, does not constitute adultery under New Hampshire law. On 8 April, 2005 Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/politics/09finkelstein.html?ex=1270699200&en=ca95af744bb6439b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland]

Canada

Canada has advanced dramatically in the fight of same-sex rights, exceeding many other liberal nations in laws and benefits directed towards same-sex couples and members of the trans communities. The court case of Everett Klippert caused much discussion of homosexuality among Canadians. In 1965 Everett Klippert was interrogated by the police as part of an arson investigation in the Northwest Territories. Klippert was arrested after admitting that he had had sex with other men. When psychiatrists determined that Everett Klippert was unlikely to stop having sex with men, he was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to life in prison. Macleans magazine, Canada's popular newsweekly, then printed an article sympathetic to homosexuals. This led to increasing calls to reform Canada's law on homosexuality. Everett Klippert was released in 1971. Homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada as a result of legislation introduced in 1969 by then-Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, Pierre Trudeau (who later became the 16th Prime Minister of Canada). He famously commented, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." In 1971 Canada's first gay rights march took place in Ottawa. In 1975 and 1976, there are large scale protests after the police raid gay establishments in Quebec and in Ottawa in preparation for the 1976 Olympics. In 1977, the province of Quebec becomes the first province in Canada to include "sexual orientation" in its Human Rights Act. As of 2004, all provinces and territories have included "sexual orientation" to their Human Rights Acts, and the Northwest Territories include "gender identity" in theirs. In 1978, the Canadian Immigration Act was amended, removing a ban on homosexuals as immigrants. In 1981, a major bathhouse raid occurred in Toronto, so outraging the gay community that an estimated 3000 people poured into the streets of Toronto to protest the raid. Infrequent bathhouse raids continue to occur to this day. Laws from the 1800s known as "bawdy house laws" are still listed in the Criminal Code of Canada; police use these laws to lay charges, and use liquor violation laws as grounds to enter the premises. In 1982, Canada patriated its Constitution, and added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The wording "sexual orientation" was not explicitly included in the list of groups listed in Section 15 of the Charter (Equality Rights), against which, "in particular," discrimination is forbidden. However, in 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Egan v. Canada that "sexual orientation" should be 'read in' to Section 15. In the 1980s, several attempts were made to add "sexual orientation" into the federal government's Human Rights Act, an amendment that did not take place until 1996. In 1986, sexual orientation was added to the Ontario Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground for discrimination. In 1988, New Democratic Party Member of Parliament (MP) Svend Robinson became the first MP to come out, declaring that he is gay to the media outside the House of Commons. In 1992, then-Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, Kim Campbell (who later became Canada's first female prime minister) announced that Canada was lifting its ban on homosexuals in the military, allowing them to serve openly and live on-base with their partners. Canada was one of the first countries to allow this. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians could apply for refugee status based on their sexual orientation. In 1995, a court in Ontario ruled that gay and lesbian couples wishing to adopt jointly should be allowed to do so, making Ontario the first province to allow this. Currently, nearly all provinces allow gay and lesbian couples (and single gays and lesbians) to adopt children. In 1998, Glen Murray was elected Mayor of Winnipeg becoming the first openly gay Mayor of a large North American city. In 1999, gays and lesbians scored a major victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights at heterosexual common-law couples. This forced the federal Liberal government to pass a bill in 2000 amending 68 federal statutes, including pension benefits, bankruptcy protection, income taxes, old age security, and immigration, among others. Legal marriage, however, remained defined as being between a man and a woman. In 2001, NDP MP Libby Davies came out as a lesbian, becoming the country's first (and so far only) open lesbian Member of Parliament. Libby Davies for gay rights]] In May 2004, the House of Commons and the Senate passed Bill C-250, which added "sexual orientation" to the "hate propaganda" section of the Criminal Code, thus making it illegal for people to propagate hate based on sexual orientation. This does not include clergymen however. In July 2004, Scott Brison, who had previously run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was appointed Minister of Public Works and Government Services by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, becoming Canada's first openly gay Cabinet memeber. Between 2002 and 2005, courts in several provinces and one territory ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples constitutes a form of discrimination that is prohibited by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and struck down the federal definition, requiring that those jurisdictions register same-sex marriages. The first ruling required the federal government to draft legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, but later rulings brought the new definition into effect immediately in the jurisdictions concerned. Canadian jurisdictions thereby became the third in the world to allow same-sex marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium. By July 2005, same-sex marriages were legally recognized in all provinces and territories except Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, encompassing over 85% of Canada's population of roughly 32 million people. (See Same-sex marriage in Canada.) The federal government announced in the summer of 2003 that it would not appeal the decisions, and would draft legislation to allow same-sex marriages across the country. The bill was put before the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that is would withstand a Charter challenge by those who oppose same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the draft legislation in October of 2004. The bill was passed by Parliament in July 2005 making Canada the fourth country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, and the first to do so without a residency requirement. (See Civil Marriage Act) In the House of Commons, three parties support LGBT rights with varying degrees. The New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois are the most vocal supporters of these rights, and the Liberal Party of Canada is divided in its approach to the issue. The Conservative Party of Canada is largely opposed to LGBT rights, although some members, typically former members of the Progressive Conservative Party, have supported LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage. Former members of the Canadian Alliance have generally opposed expanded LGBT rights, and some former CA MPs who are now Conservative MPs have been rebuked for calls to re-criminalize homosexuality. There are currently five members of the House of Commons and one senator who identify as gay or lesbian. There is one former MP and one retired senator who identify as such.

Republic of Ireland

Homosexuality was formally decriminalised in the Republic of Ireland in 1993. Currently discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is outlawed by the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000. These laws forbid discrimination in any of the following areas: employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other publicly available opportunities. At present Irish law does not provide for gay marriage or civil partnerships, although a civil partnership bill is currently under consideration. The decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 was the result of a campaign by Senator David Norris and the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform which led to a ruling, in 1988, that Irish laws prohibiting homosexual activities were in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform was founded in the 1970s to fight for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, its founding members including Senator Norris and future President of Ireland Mary McAleese. Prior to 1993 homosexuality was not illegal in the Republic per se but certain laws dating from the nineteenth century rendered homosexual acts illegal. The relevant legislation was the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, and the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act, both enacted while the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the state had a long-standing policy of only prosecuting people in cases where minors were involved or sexual acts were committed in public or without consent. In 1983 David Norris took a case to the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the constitutionality of these laws but was unsuccessful. In its judgement (delivered by a 3-2 majority) the court referred to the "Christian and democratic nature of the Irish State" and argued that criminalisation served public health and the institution of marriage. In 1988 Norris took a case to the European Court of Human Rights to argue that Irish law was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The court, in the case of Norris v. Ireland, ruled that the criminalisation of homosexuality in the Republic violated Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to privacy in personal affairs. The Irish parliament (Oireachtas) decriminalised homosexuality five years later.

Rest of Europe

Portugal, France, Norway, Sweden, Slovenia, Finland, Hungary, Croatia and Denmark recognize same-sex civil unions. Germany recognizes same-sex civil unions, which confers rights to joint adoption. The Netherlands, Spain and Belgium recognize same-sex marriages, including the right to joint adoption. Most east European countries have laws banning discrimination against gay people; however, few of them recognise same-sex civil unions (with the exception of Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia). The mayor of Warsaw who has since elected President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, twice banned Pride marches in recent years. They went ahead against his wishes, but marchers were harassed and assaulted.

The Middle East

Turkey, Cyprus and Israel are of the few countries in the Middle East where Homosexuality is not illegal or persecuted by the authorities. In Israel, same sex marriage is not officially recognized, but common-law marriage status (gay) has been established after numerous high court appeals. Israel has an active gay community, with annual gay pride festivals held in Tel-Aviv since 1998. The [http://www.gay.org.il/joh/eng/WPJ.htm World Pride Festival] in Jerusalem, originally planned for 2005, was postponed until 2006. An attempt by Jerusalem's mayor to thwart Jerusalem pride in June 2005 was challenged in the courts. The mayor lost and was ordered to contribute funds to the event. In most other Middle Eastern countries homosexuality is illegal, often punishable by flogging and even hanging.

South Africa

In December 2005, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent people of the same gender marrying when it was permitted to people of oppsite gender, and gave the South African Paliament one year to "rework laws allowing same-sex unions. If Parliament does not do this in one year, the Marriage Act will be rewritten to include the words "or spouse" to allow these unions to take place." The article states that same-sex couples may marry at present, but the marriage is not recognised in law. [http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national&articleid=258183 Mail & Guardian Online, Dec 1 2005, Johannesburg]

See also


- Gay rights in Iraq
- Gay rights in Israel
- Guardian: Saudi Arabia's [http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1455792,00.html tough line on gays]

See also


- Age of consent
- Al-Fatiha Foundation (Muslim)
- Australian Coalition for Equality
- Bisexuality
- California domestic partner law (USA)
- Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform (Ireland)
- Egale Canada (Canada)
- Gay
- Gay rights timeline
- Homophobia
- Homosexuality
- List of gay-rights organizations
- List of transgender-related topics
- Log Cabin Republicans (USA)
- Same-sex marriage
- Section 28 (UK)
- Special rights
- Stonewall Democrats (USA)
- Gay agenda
- Queer
- Queer Theory
- Singapore gay movement

References


- http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210
- http://www.narth.com/docs/schoenewolf2.html

External links


- [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=501232531&Notice=0&Noticemode=&RelatedMode=0 Norris v. Ireland] (European Court of Human Rights case law)
- [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/herep/sift/555.txt Report of the European Commission Of Human Rights on the case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom (Application 25186/94), 1 July 1997]
- [http://www.glaad.org GLAAD - Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]
- [http://www.pflag.org Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays]
- [http://www.thetaskforce.org National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]
- [http://www.gayrightswatch.com - Gay Rights Watch]
- [http://www.gaymiddleeast.com/country/israel Gay Middle East - Israel section]
- [http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/020220_gay_israel_history.html Queer In the land of sodom] History of Homosexuality in Israel
- [http://www.GoodAsYou.org Good As You : Gay & Lesbian Activism with a Sense of Humor]
- [http://www.helem.net Helem] - GLBTIQ rights organization in Lebanon
- [http://www.williamapercy.com/pub-outing.htm Outing] Category:Activism
- Category:Political movements Category:Politics by issue

Gay

Gay is a word with several meanings in modern society. It can be used as either a noun or adjective. As a noun, it is most commonly used as a term to identify a man with a homosexual orientation. It can also be used to describe a homosexual woman, although lesbian is more specific. The first name Gay is still occasionally encountered, usually as a female name although the spelling is often altered to Gaye. (795th most common in the 1990 census according to [http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/dist.female.first]) Gay used as an adjective describes stereotypical traits associated with gays and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle.

Etymology

Sometimes, histories of word origins are less than useful for communicating modern meanings of socioculturally potent words. Furthermore, the usage of any word changes dramatically as the culture in which it is embedded changes. Gay once was used to mean "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very common in speech and literature. In more recent times, starting in the mid 20th century, the word gay cannot be used solely in this former context without the expectation that one will assume a double entendre, or that the person using the term is out of touch with contemporary society. Some have tried to recover the original connotation of the word, but with limited success.

Etymology of the modern usage

The use of the term gay, as it relates to homosexuality, is documented as early as the 1920s. Its original meaning was 'happy and carefree', and until the early 20th century a middle-aged bachelor could be described as "gay" without prejudice. One of Oscar Wilde's favorite venues in Dublin was the Gaiety Theatre, first appearing there in 1884. A quote from Gertrude Stein's Miss Furr & Mrs. Skeene (1922) is possibly the first traceable use of the word, though it is not altogether clear whether she uses the word to mean lesbianism or happiness: :They were ...gay, they learned little things that are things in being gay, ... they were quite regularly gay. The 1929 musical Bitter Sweet by Noel Coward has the first uncontested use of the word: in the song "Green Carnation", four overdressed, 1890s dandies sing: :Pretty boys, witty boys, You may sneer :At our disintegration. :Haughty boys, naughty boys, :Dear, dear, dear! :Swooning with affectation... :And as we are the reason :For the "Nineties" being gay, :We all wear a green carnation. Coward uses the "gay nineties" as a double entendre. The song title alludes to the gay playwright Oscar Wilde, who famously wore a green carnation himself. However in 1934 the term was still unknown by the general public, as evidenced by the title of the The Gay Divorcee, a musical film about a heterosexual couple. It was originally to be called The Gay Divorce after the play on which it was based, but the Hays Office determined that while a divorcee may be gay, it would be unseemly to allow a divorce to appear so. Bringing Up Baby (1938) was the first film to use the word gay in reference to homosexuality. In a scene where Cary Grant's clothes have been sent to the cleaners, he must wear a lady's feathery robe. When another character inquires about his clothes, he responds "Because I just went gay...all of a sudden!" [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG03/comedy/bringingupbaby.html] Gay was originally used purely as an adjective ("he is a gay man" or "he is gay"). Gay can be also used as a plural collective-like noun: "Gays are opposed to that policy;" although this usage may be deprecated by some, it is common [http://www.google.com/search?q=gays] particularly in the names of various organizations such as PFLAG: (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere). It is rarely used as a singular noun "he is a gay" and sounds unusual in this context, such as in its use by the Little Britain comedy character Daffyd Thomas (a gay man who believes himself "the only gay in the village" despite abundant evidence to the contrary). In the 1960s, gay became the term predominantly preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. Gay was the preferred term since homosexual was the name used by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to denote men affected by the "mental illness" of same-sex attraction. The illness of homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973, but the clinical connotation of the word was already embedded in society. By 1963, the word was known well enough by the straight community to be used by Albert Ellis in his book The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Man-Hunting.

Folk etymologies

It has been claimed that "gay" was derived as an acronym for "Good As You", but this is a backronym (based on a fake etymology). Another folk etymology accrues to Gay Street, a small street in the West Village of New York City — a nexus of homosexual culture. The term also seems, from documentary evidence, to have existed in New York as a code word in the 1940s, where the question, "Are you gay?" would denote more than it might have seemed to outsiders.

Commonly accepted usage

Overview article: Terminology of homosexuality
- Gay is used as an adjective to describe sexual orientation (attraction, preference, or inclination) and is usually chosen instead of homosexual as an identity-label.
- Gay sex involves acts between or among people of the same sex or gender.
- Gay is usually used to describe the "gay community" by both insiders and the mainstream media.
- Gay can be used as a nonspecific derogatory comment towards a person or object.
- Gay is sometimes used to describe an object of particular flamboyance.
- Other connotations can vary widely based upon speaker and situation.

Sexual orientation

Many people consider gay and homosexual to be synonyms. Other people, however, consider gay to be a matter of self-identification and homosexual to refer to sexual activity. By using these definitions, a person could be gay but not homosexual, or homosexual but not gay. See sex for a discussion of the complexities surrounding the concepts of sex and gender. Sexual orientation, behavior, and self-identification are not necessarily aligned in a clear-cut fashion for a given individual. If a person has had same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as closeted, on the down low, discreet, or bi-curious may apply. Similarly, a person may identify as gay even in absence of sexual activity. This is the case for some celibate individuals and for young people who have come out of the closet as gay for political or emotional reasons but are not yet ready to form a sexual relationship. This may also apply to bisexuals, who may consider themselves to be gay due to their same-sex attractions even if they are in a monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This too involves certain complexities, however, as some people consider gay and bisexual mutually exclude one another, though this is of great debate between the respective parties. However, some same-sex oriented persons actually prefer the term homosexual to gay, seeing the former as describing a sexual orientation and the latter as describing a cultural or socio-political group with which they do not identify.

Self-identification

Self-identification of one's sexual orientation is becoming far more commonplace in areas of increased social acceptance, but many are either reluctant to self-identify publicly or even privately to themselves. The process is fairly complex, and many groups related to gay people cite inadvertent heterosexism as a leading problem for those that would otherwise self-identify.

Selecting the appropriate term

Some people reject the term homosexual as an identity-label because they find it too clinical-sounding. They believe it is too focused on physical acts rather than romance or attraction, or too reminiscent of the era when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Conversely, some people find the term gay to be offensive or reject it as an identity-label because they perceive the cultural connotations to be undesirable or because of the negative connotations of the slang usage of the word. According to the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for School Employees: :"Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest [of the United States]." Sometimes the term gay is used to describe both same-sex male and same-sex female relations. More rarely, it is used as a shorthand for terms queer or gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.. The term also sometimes includes transgender, transsexual, and intersexual. Some trans and intersexed individuals find their inclusion in this larger grouping to be offensive. It is commonly used to refer specifically to gay men; the precise meaning may need to be made clear from context. The term lesbian, however, is exclusively female.

Gay community

The emotional, cultural, social and erotic lives of gay people are represented by the gay community. Although there is wide ethnic, socioeconomic and cultural variation within the community, social cohesion exists for several reasons. For example, many LGBT people have been through similar experiences. The community also serves as a refuge from homophobia, though this role is decreasing in many parts of the world as society becomes more comfortable with LGBT people.

Descriptor

The term gay can also be used as an adjective to describe things related to gay people or things which are part of gay culture. For example, while a gay bar is not itself homosexual, using gay as an adjective to describe the bar indicates that the bar is either gay-oriented, caters primarily to gay men, or is otherwise part of gay culture. Using it to describe an object, such as an item of clothing, suggests that it is particularly flamboyant, often on the verge of being gaudy and garish. This stems from the notion that such items appeal to gay people (usually to gay men). Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to "related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general" is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offense.

Pejorative usage

When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that film was so gay"), the term gay is purely pejorative and can be deeply offensive. The derogatory implication is that the object (or person) in question is inferior, worthless, effeminate, or stupid. This usage has its origins in the 1980s, when homosexuality had already become mainstream but was still taboo. Beginning in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s this usage is common among young people, who may or may not link the term to gay people.

Alternate spellings

Other spellings, such as "ghey" and "ghei", are sometimes found on the Internet and are used in an attempt to bypass chat room censors.

See also


- AIDS
- Bisexuality
- Civil rights
- Coming out
- Dyke
- Fag
- Gay pride
- Gay rights
- HIV
- Homosexuality
- Lesbian
- List of LGBT-related organizations
- List of gay-related topics
- List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
- Queer
- Religion and sexuality
- Sexual orientation
- Self-hating gay
- Sodom and Gomorrah

External links


- [http://www.gayrightswatch.com Gay Rights Watch]
- [http://www.gay.com Gay.com News & Chat]
- [http://www.gaycrawler.com GayCrawler.com Gay and Lesbian worldwide directory] Category:LGBT Category:Sexual orientation and identity Category:Slang Category:LGBT terms ja:ゲイ

Right

:The following article discusses the notion of rights in matters of philosophy and Law. For the direction right, see left and right or starboard. For a discussion of "right" in the sense of right-wing politics or ideology, see Right-wing politics. "Claim" redirects here. For other uses, see Claim (disambiguation). A right is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints upon the actions of individuals or groups (for example, if one is granted a right to life, this means that others do not have the liberty to murder him). Most modern conceptions of rights are universalist and egalitarian; in other words, equal rights are granted to all people. Such rights may be defined in terms of the Golden Rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). An individual agrees to respect the rights of others in exchange for the assurance that the others will respect the same rights for him in turn. By contrast, most pre-modern conceptions of rights were hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the rights of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings to hold absolute power over their subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves. It is not generally considered necessary that a right should be understood by the holder of that right, thus rights may be agreed on behalf of another, such as children's rights or the rights of people declared mentally incompetant to understand their rights. However, rights must be understood by someone in order to have legal existence, so the understanding of rights is a social prerequisite for the existence of rights. Therefore, educational opportunities within society have a close bearing upon the people's ability to erect adequate rights structures. There are two fundamental controversies surrounding the notion of rights: First, there is the question of the basis for rights (on what basis can rights be said to exist). Second, there is the question of the content of rights (what the rights of a person actually are).

Legal rights

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked. The specific enumeration of rights accorded to citizens has historically differed greatly from one century to the next, and from one regime to the next, but nowadays is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. Generally speaking (within the English and European systems) a right corresponds with a complementary obligation that others have on the same object or realm; for instance if someone has a right on a thing, simultaneously another party or parties have an obligation to do something (or to abstain from doing something) in order to respect that right or to give concrete execution to that right. Property rights provide a good example: society recognizes that individuals have title to particular property as defined by the transaction by which they acquired the property granting the individual free use and possession of the property. In many cases, especially regarding ideological and similar rights, the obligation depends on the legal system in its entirety, or on the state, or on the generical universality of other subjects submitted to the law. The right can therefore be a faculty of doing something, of omitting or refusing to do something or of claiming something. Some interpretations express a typical form of right in the faculty of using something, and this is more often related to the right of property. The faculty (in all the above mentioned senses) can be originated by a (generical or specific) law, or by a private contract (which is sometimes exactly defined as a specific law between or among volunteer parties). Other interpretations consider the right as a sort of freedom of something or as the object of justice. One of the definitions of justice is in fact the obligation that the legal system has toward the individual or toward the collectivity to grant respect or execution to his/her/its right, ordinarily with no need of explicit claim. Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics (book five), claims that there is a large difference between written (generalized) justice and what is actually right for the (specific) individual. :(10-3) "But what obscures the matter is that though what is equitable is just, it is not identical with, but a correction of, that which is just according to law." :(10-4) "The reason of this is that every law is laid down in general terms, while there are matters about which it is impossible to speak correctly in general terms. Where, then, it is necessary to speak in general terms, but impossible to do so correctly, the legislator lays down that which holds good for the majority of cases, being quite aware that it does not hold good for all." :"The law, indeed, is none the less correctly laid down because of this defect; for the defect lies not in the law, nor in the lawgiver, but in the nature of the subject-matter, being necessarily involved in the very conditions of human action." Rights can be divided into individual rights, that are held by citizens as individuals (or corporations) recognised by the legal system, and collective rights, held by an ensemble of citizens or a subgroup of citizens who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there can be an amount of tension between individual and collective rights. In other cases, the view of collective and individual rights held by one group can come into sharp and bitter conflict with the view of rights held by another group. For instance compare Manifest destiny with Trail of Tears. With reference to the object of the right, a common general distinction is among:
- intellectual rights, which include:
  - civil rights
  - religious rights
  - rights of opinion
- real rights (from the Latin word "res", thing), which include:
  - property rights
  - rights of use
  - liberties See also: human rights, positive rights, negative rights, exclusive rights. Particular systems can (or could in the past) include special rights like:
- fief rights, which included:
  - economical rights (like the right to collect taxes)
  - performance rights (like the jus primae noctis or corvee)

Important documents


- Magna Carta (1215; England)
  - Required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.
- Bill of Rights 1689 (England)
  - Declared that Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possess certain civil and political rights that can not be taken away.
- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France)
  - One of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of the people.
- United States Bill of Rights (1789/1791)
  - The first ten amendments of the United States Constitution.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
  - An over-arching set of standards by which Governments, organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other. The preamble declares that the
- :"...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
  - Other general Declarations from the UN have followed, notably the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 [http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm].
- European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
  - Adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)
  - Its purpose is to protect rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of all levels of government.
- Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000)

See also


- Jurisprudence
- Law
- Animal rights
- Bill of rights
- Freedom
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech
- Freedom of the press
- Social contract
- Claim (patent)

External links


- [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Right "Right" in Wiktionary]
- [http://www.hrw.org/ Human Rights Watch]
- [http://www.amnesty.org/ Amnesty International]
- [http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/wiked/index.php/Teacher%E2%80%99s_rights Teacher's Rights]
- [http://www.ifex.org/ International Freedom of Expression Exchange] Category:Law Category:Rights ja:権利 simple:Rights

Social movement

. Here, Martin Luther King is giving his "I Have a Dream" speech, in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom]] Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out a social change. Modern social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature), and increased mobility of labour due to the industrialisation and urbanisation of 19th century societies. The freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture is responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.

History

Political movements that evolved in late 18th century, like those connected to the French Revolution and Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 are among the first documented social movements. The labor movement and socialist movement of the late 19th century are seen as the prototypical social movements, leading to the formation of communist and social democratic parties and organisations. From 1815, Britain after victory in the Napoleonic Wars entered a period of social upheaval aformed from 1905 as pressure for reform continued, resulting in the collapse of the Russian State at the end of the First World War. In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War entered a period of radical reform and change. In the 1970s, women's rights, peace, civil rights and environmental movements emerged, often dubbed New Social Movements.They led inter alia to the formation of green parties. Some find in the end of the 1990s the emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-globalization movement.

Key processes

Several key processes lie behind the history of social movements. The process of urbanisation, which created large cities, facilitated social interaction between scores of people. It was in cities, where people of similar goals could find each other, gather and organise, that those early social movements first appeared. Similarly, the process of industrialisation which gathered large masses of workers in the same region was responsible for the fact that many of those early social movements addressed matters important to that social class. Many other social movements were created at universities, where the process of mass education brought many people together. With the development of communication technologies, creation and activities of social movements became easier - from printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses to newspapers and Internet, all those tools became important factors in the growth of the social movements. Finally, the spread of democracy and political rights like the freedom of speech made the creation and functioning of social movements much easier.

Types of social movements

Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movements:
- scope
  - reform movements - movements dedicated to changing some norms, usually legal ones. Examples of such a movement would include a trade union with a goal of increasing workers rights, a green movement advocating a set of ecological laws, or a movement supporting introduction of a capital punishment or right to abortion. Some reform movements may advocate a change in custom and moral norms, for example, condemnation of pornography or proliferation of some religion.
  - religion was an important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union]] radical movement - movements dedicated to changing some value systems. Those are usually much larger in scope than the reform movements, Examples would include the American Civil Rights Movement which demanded full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans, regardless of race, or the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement which demanded the transformation of communist political and economy system into democracy and capitalism.
- type of change
  - innovation movement - movements which want to introduce new norms, values, etc. The singularitarianism movement advocating deliberate action to effect and ensure the safety of the technological singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
  - conservative movement - movements which want to preserve existing norms, values, etc. The anti-machines 19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement opposing the spread of the genetically modified food are examples of conservative movements.
- target audience
  - group-focus movements - focused on affecting groups or society in general, for example, advocating the change of the political system. Most of such groups eventually transform into or join a political party.
  - individual-focused movements - focused on affecting individuals. Most religious movements would fall under this category. Those movements rarely transform into political parties.
- methods of work
  - religious movement independence]] peaceful movements - opposed to using violent means. Mentioned American Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or Mahatma Gandhi civil disobedience movements would fall into this category
  - violent movements - various armed resistance movements up to and including terrorist organisations. Examples would include the Palestinian Hezbollah, Basque Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or Ireland Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) movements.
- old and new
  - old movements - most of the 19th century movements which recruited their followers from a specific social class (only workers, only peasants, only whites, only aristocrats, only protestants, etc.). They were usually centered around some materialistic goals like improving the standard of living of the given social class.
  - new movements - movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th century - like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, gay rights movement, peace movement, anti-nuclear movement, anti-globalization movement, etc. Sometimes they are known as postmodernism movements. They are usually centered around a non-materialistic goal.

Dynamics of social movements

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist. They are more likely to evolve in the time and place which is friendly to the social movements: hence their evident symbiosis with the 19th century proliferation of ideas like individual rights, freedom of speech and civil disobedience. They are more likely to form in the societies and cultures allowing expression of ideas by individuals - like most of the Western culture, which explains why most social movements exist in United States and Europe, and fewer in more autocratic places like Russia or China. Such friendly context and environment is only a background facilitating the creation of the social movement. There must also be polarizing differences between groups of people: in case of 'old movements', they were the poverty and wealth gaps. In case of the 'new movements', they are more likely to be the differences in customs, ethics and values. Finally, the birth of a social movement needs what sociologist Neil Smelser calls an initiating event: a particular, individual event that will begin a chain reaction of events in the given society leading to the creation of a social movement. For example, American Civil Rights movement grew on the reaction to black women, Rosa Parks, riding in the whites-only section of the bus (although it is important to note that Rosa Parks was not acting alone or spontaneously -- typically activist leaders lay the groundwork behind the scenes of interventions designed to spark a movement). Polish Solidarity movement, which eventually toppled the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, developed after trade union activist Anna Walentynowicz was fired from work. Such an event is also described as a volcanic model - a social movement is often created after a large number of people realise that there are others sharing the same value and desire for a particular social change. Thus, one of the main difficulties facing the emerging social movement is spreading the very knowledge that it exists. Second is overcoming the free rider problem - convincing people to join it, instead of following the mentality 'why should I trouble myself when others can do it and I can just reap the benefits after their hard work'. free rider problem Many social movements are created around some charismatic leader, i.e. one possessing charismatic authority. After the social movement is created, there are two likely phases of recruitment. The first phase will gather the people deeply interested in the primary goal and ideal of the movement. The second phase, which will usually come after the given movement had some successes and its fs trendy; it would look good on a résumé. People who join in this second phase will likely be the first to leave when the movement suffers any setbacks and failures. Eventually, the socia crisis can be encouraged by outside elements, like opposition from government or other movements. However, many movements had survived a failure crisis, being revived by some hardcore activists even after several decades.

References


- Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, Edited by Immanuel Ness, 2004, ISBN 0-7656-8045-9

List of social movements

See list of social movements for a more complete list of social movements. The below list contains only very few selected movements not mentioned in the main article above:
- Afrisecal movement
- Animal rights movement
- Conservation movement
- Cultural movement
- Ecology movement
- Ethiopian movement
- Labor movement
- Reform movements in the United States
- Taisho democracy in Japan
- Unity of science Category:Sociology Category:Social movements Category:Society

Human rights

Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality. The existence, validity and the content of human rights continue to be the subject to debate in philosophy and political science. However human rights are defined in international law & covenants, and further, in the domestic laws of many states. There is, however, a great deal of variance between how human rights norms are defined in these multiple contexts and how they are upheld in different local jurisdictions. Within particular states, "human rights" refer to safeguards for the individual against arbitrary use of power by the government regarding 1) the well being of individuals, 2) the freedom and autonomy of individuals, and 3) the representation of the human interest in government. These rights commonly include the right to life, the right to an adequate standard of living, freedom from torture and other mistreatment, freedom of religion and of expression, freedom of movement, the right to self-determination, the right to education, and the right to participation in cultural and political life. These norms are based on the legal and political traditions of United Nations member states and are incorporated into international human rights instruments (see below). With the exception of so called non-derogable human rights (the four most important are the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws), most human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of war.[http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm] Conduct in war is governed by International Humanitarian Law.

Human Rights in international law

The 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights resolution was adopted virtually unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly. While not legally binding, it urged member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The declaration limits the behavior of the state, which now has duties to the citizen (rights-duty duality). Efforts to create a legally binding form of the charter led to disagreements between various states over which rights were acceptable. Thus, two different covenents, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (opened for signature 1966, entered into force March 23, 1976) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (opened for signature 1966, entered into force January 3, 1976) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm] were created which bind those states that ratify them to protect the rights listed in the respective covenant. Together these three documents constitute the International Bill of Human Rights. There have also been a number of other conventions regarding particular rights, including the
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entry into force: 1951) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm]
- Convention against Torture (entry into force: 1984) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm]
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entry into force: 1969) [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm]
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (entry into force: 1981) [http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/frame.htm]
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (entry into force: 1989) [http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm]
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entry into force: 2002) A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was made in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/vienna.htm], adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The degree of unanimity over these conventions, in terms of how many and which countries have ratified them vary, as does the degree to which they are respected by various states. The UN has set up a number of bodies to monitor and study human rights, under the leadership of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR). There are also many regional agreements and organisations governing human rights including the European Court of Human Rights, the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (not states). the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Types of human rights

Human rights are typically divided into two categories: negative human rights (rights to be free from) and positive human rights (rights to), although other categorizations exist. Negative human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American legal tradition, denote actions that a government should not take. These are codified in the United States Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and include freedoms of speech, religion and assembly. Positive human rights follow mainly from the Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition, denote rights that the state is obliged to protect and provide. Examples of such rights include: the rights to education, to a livelihood, to legal equality, and to alter forms of consciousness. Positive rights have been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in many 20th-century constitutions. A categorization offered by Karel Vasak is the three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. Some theorists discredit these divisions by claiming that rights are interconnected. Arguably, for example, basic education is necessary for the right to political participation.

History of human rights

The best-known histories of the human rights movement tend to begin with the ancient religions and societies and show the evolution of concepts and institutions of human rights across civilizations. The roots of the notion of Human Rights can be drawn as far back as the Ancients (the role of the individual in the state) but the idea of civil and political rights stems from liberal freedoms advocated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. The concepts of economic, social and cultural Rights can be traced back to Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right. The origin of modern positive rights in international law may be traced to the creation of the International Labour Organization in 1919 as a Western response to the socialist ideology of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Philosophical basis of human rights

Numerous theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how human rights become part of social expectations. The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior, which is a human, social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume) or as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber). This approach includes the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls). Natural law theories base human rights on the “natural” moral order based on religious precepts, the assumed common understandings of justice, or the belief that moral behavior is a set of objectively valid prescriptions. In legend, literature, religion and political thought, justice (and eventually the concept of human rights) became socially constructed over time into complex webs of social interaction striving toward a social order in which human beings are treated fairly. Religious societies tend to try to justify human rights through religious arguments. For example, liberal movements within Islam have tried to use the story of Adam in the Qur'an to support human rights in a Muslim context. Other theories are based on human agency, positing such constructs for agreement to rules on the utilitarian principles mediated by public reasoning. The social evolution model is based on human needs and struggle that incorporates an analysis of the norm-creating process. Values become norms through the constitutive process of authoritative decision-making. Such norms may take the form of law through a particular form of authoritative decision making of institutions associated with a legal system. It is the process of public reasoning through human rights norm-creating that progressively weeds out the culturally bound behaviors that are inconsistent with contemporary human rights. In this sense, culturally particular norms adapt to evolving human rights standards as defined in national constitutions and international human rights instruments. Ultimately, the term "human rights" is often itself an appeal to a transcendent principle, without basing it on existing legal concepts. The term "humanism" refers to the developing doctrine of such universally applicable values. Some authors argue that nationalism and realism weaken human rights, while individualism and cosmopolitanism strengthen them. This is argued by Klitou in his book "The Friends and Foes of Human Rights." Klitou also outlines the need for a "human identity" in order to empower human In the Western political tradition, human rights are held to be "inalienable" and to belong to all humans. They are necessary for freedom and the maintenance of a "reasonable" quality of life. If a right is inalienable, that means it cannot be bestowed, granted, bartered, or sold away (e.g., one cannot sell oneself into slavery). Rights may also be non-derogable (not limited in times of national emergency); these often include the right to life, the right to be prosecuted only according to the laws that are in existence at the time of the offense, the right to be free from slavery, and the right to be free from torture.

Human rights controversies

There are a number of controversies regarding human rights including: #Are human rights political, moral or legal entities (or all three at the same time)? #Is there or should there be a hierarchy of human rights? #Do human rights impede on state sovereignty? What if the state itself has ratified international conventions? #Should human rights be used as a context for economic or military intervention? (Often leads to a worsening of the human rights situation in the target country) #Questions of cultural relativism—e.g. "Political participation is not a part of African culture. Who are you to say that we should have political participation?" These arguments can also be made on religious basis: e.g., "In our religion marriages have always been arranged; why should we not continue this practice?" Some arguments claim that human rights policies are a form of cultural imperialism in which powerful countries dictate which rights they consider most important to less powerful countries. The increasing number of third-world states that are party to international human rights treaties has made these arguments weaker, but they have not disappeared altogether. #Who should hold the moral duty to uphold rights? For civil and political rights, many would answer 'the state'. But in practice, it is frequently one's fellow citizens and civil society who need to shoulder this responsibility. It is not quite so clear who should be responsible for promoting economic, social and cultural rights (do we have a global duty?). This debate mirrors debates between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. #Which rights should be defined as fundamental human rights? Should all human rights be considered equal? #Are countries guilty of human rights violations when their governments substantially support foreign governments that do not adhere to the established principles of human rights (within their own countries or in other countries)?

See also

Similar topics


- Civil rights
- Inalienable rights
- Natural rights
- Rights

General


- Democratic ideals
- Femicide
- Genocide
- Human rights abuse
- Human rights education
- International human rights instruments
- Social justice
- Slavery
- Trafficking in human beings
- Three generations of human rights
- Torture

Human rights organizations


- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Carter Center
- Forum 18
- Freedom House
- Human Rights Campaign
- Human Rights Watch
- International Freedom of Expression Exchange
- International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
- Memorial (society)
- Montagnard Foundation
- Network Against Prohibition
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Prisoners Overseas
- Southern Poverty Law Center
- Bahrain Centre for Human Rights

Africa


- South Africa: Human rights in