Category: Civil Liberties

Abstract

The focus of the report is the Civil Liberty-Homeland Security Debate. The report offers a historical context of security and liberty. Following this, a discussion of the primary issues in this context is conducted. The report concludes by arguing that the counter-measures have rarely addressed the dissent, calling for a long-term solution through political inclusion, social reform, and protection of rights.

Civil Liberty-Homeland Security Debate

The term homeland security is common to the security environment, as well as the modern political lexicon (Alperen, 2017). Even though homeland security remains a new term that was formulated in the context of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the concept has always existed in times of political crisis and national security. Whenever there has been a national security issue or a political crisis, controversial measures were implemented in such times. One of the common examples of these measures includes media restriction.

Restrictions to security-related information access have been undertaken in the United States from time to time. The logic behind the introduction of such measures is understandable in crisis. The policy decision introduced by the government was that counterterrorism policy or war effort imposition of limitations on the media, in terms of preventing information from reaching in the enemy hands and preventing the enemy from their propaganda. Democracies find it increasingly challenging to balance to ensure a balance between unbridled propaganda and control of information for national security.

According to the preamble of the US constitution, the main aim of the government system is the provision of welfare, security, and peace to the citizen, as well as securing the liberties of the citizen. There are lies a difficulty in balancing the desire between safeguarding human rights, as well as, securing the nation. Therefore, there is often a debate on how to achieve these goals. The purpose of the case study is to discuss the primary issues related to the debate. To achieve the aim of the case study, it is essential to understand the historical context of security and liberty.

The historical context of Security and Liberty

Numerous security-related policies have been integrated into domestic society and politics. The reason behind the introduction of such policies was protecting the nation from threats. Over the years, various instances have occurred when American leaders have enacted policies for managing the crisis. These countermeasures were essential and popular during the time, the reason was that domestic security was identified as a necessity. Even though there remained support for these policies, there was strong opposition and criticism regarding the implementation of the policies. The ethics, as well as the constitutionality of the laws, came under question after the post-crisis years. During the Early Republic and Civil War, the government introduced laws such as the Alien Enemies Act, Alien Friends Act, Naturalization Act, Sedition Act, and various acts were introduced.

Achieving Security

Advocates on civil liberties contend that it is vital to ensure that there is a balance between the protection of civil liberties and achieving security. To ensure security, the government should take a proportionate response to the threat and ensure the implementation of the measures. Simultaneously advocates on civil liberties have argued that as the response of the government is mostly reactive, it is essential to devise a permanent solution by countering extremism through reform (Alperen, 2017). In the next part, we discuss the context of the balance between civil liberties and homeland security.

Government Response and Civil Liberty

The focus of homeland security experts is primarily on achieving counterterrorist objectives. Through these objectives, they minimize, instead of eliminating the threats related to terrorists. In a practical sense, the objectives are as follows:

• Disruption and prevention of domestic terror organizations from hatching conspiracies.
• Deterring the activists from cross the line between political violence, and extremist activism.
• Implementing task forces, as well as laws for creating a cooperative environment for counterterrorism.
• Minimizing causalities, as well as the physical environment.

Balance of theory and practice

There remains no method or model to apply security across the terrorism environment or other scenarios. Due to the reality, the process to present a counterterrorism model should include a framework on theory, as well as practical necessities.

The theoretical models must incorporate respect for the protection of human rights and balancing them against the options regarding low enforcement and usage of force. For the models to remain practical, constant updating as well as adaptation of the models to the threats is critical. Perhaps, adapting the models would help in controlling terrorism by controlling extremists and violent dissidents. The adaptation of the counterterrorism policy might require controlling the information from media, as well as engaging in surveillance of private communications. Both of these factors have a significant impact on civil liberty.

Media regulation

Freedom of the press is an ideal standard in the United States (Alperen, 2017). According to the phrase, the press must enjoy the freedom to liberty to report information even in the case when the information is politically sensitive. Whenever there is a criticism of the news published by media, a common citation by media is that people have a right to know. The primary question that arises is whether the right to know extends to even the information that might have an impact on national security.

In this respect, a counter-argument is that absolute freedom of the press means press regulation. Issues start when information that must not be taken into consideration by the public is published by the media. When national security is at stake, regulation is a genuine option. When these kinds of concerns occur, the question for the editors and policymakers is that should there be an official regulation of the media and if regulation is desirable then to what extent is it acceptable.

Electronic surveillance and Civil Liberty

One of the major issues that have emerged in recent years is the electronic surveillance. Unregulated interception of emails, conversations, telefacsimile, or other forms of transmission raises fear regarding civil liberties. There remains a worry that the government would make use of these technologies for illegitimate reasons. The absence of strict protocols raises concerns regarding liberty, privacy, and security (Persyn and Polson, 2012).

Conclusion

Extremist beliefs, as well as ideologies, are ground for violent behavior. Some of the core motivations behind terrorism include nationalism, ethnocentrism, racism, religious fanaticism, ideological intolerance. History has always shown that coercive measures used for countering tendencies have not been significantly successful. Suppression and repression of civil liberties might lead to a backlash where the members who are suppressed are justified in the resistance.

The latest pandemic of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 poses a profound challenge, not only to public health structures around the globe, but additionally reaches deeply into very primary values on which many international locations are built. As the international wide variety of COVID-19 infections increases, political commentators and scientists are elevating necessary questions:

What does the unfolding of the pandemic imply for democracies? How can we ethically stabilize public fitness and civil liberties?

Civil liberties in the course of pandemic emergency situations might also have to be restricted in the public interest; however, these measures need to be necessary, reasonable, proportional, equitable, non-discriminatory, and in full compliance with country-wide and international laws.

The First Amendment states, that: Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.

Generally speaking, it capacity that the government may also no longer jail, fine, or impose civil legal responsibility on people or agencies primarily based on what they say or write, barring in fantastic circumstances.

Proper to free speech is critical and needs to now not be confined in a democratic system, especially in such a top-notch state of affairs as with the aid of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. A necessary basis for belief is the shape of government with exams and balances for limiting certain movements with the aid of authorities and for assuring that humans might also freely specify their opinions.

Government violation of this right was clearly shown in October 30, 2020 – The Justice Department Announces Statement of Interest Filed in Lawsuit Challenging Philadelphia’s Moratorium that Cancelled the Veterans Day Parade. The lawsuit claims that the Moratorium violates the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

And also in June 10, 2020 – the Department of Justice filed Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of a Free Speech Challenge to California’s COVID-19 Ban on In-Person Political Protests.

The Department of Justice filed a friend-of-the-court speedy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in assistance of a lawsuit with the aid of plaintiffs Ron Givens and Christine Bish, two folks looking for to hold peaceful in-person protests of 500 to 1,000 human beings with social distancing on the grounds of the California State Capitol Building.

The First Amendment states also, that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Freedom of faith or non-secular liberty is a precept that helps the freedom of a man or woman or community, in public or private, to show up faith or trust in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also consists of the freedom to trade one’s faith or beliefs, ‘the right not to profess any faith or belief’ or ‘not to practice a religion.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged belief communities, in precise as physical distancing measures complicate nonsecular gatherings. In the United States, the restrict of gatherings vary on a state-by-state basis. Most states granted some shape of religious exemption to the pandemic rules.

Government violation of this right was clearly shown in, October 2, 2020 – Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Supporting Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s Efforts to Practice its Faith During COVID-19.

The Justice Department filed a declaration of interest in a federal district court docket in Washington, D.C., arguing the Constitution and federal regulation require the District of Columbia to accommodate Capitol Hill Baptist Church`s effort to preserve worship services outdoors, at least to the identical extent the District of Columbia allows other forms of out of doors First Amendment activity, such as peaceable protests.

Proper to training is a fundamental human right. Every individual, irrespective of race, gender, nationality, ethnic or social origin, faith or political preference, age or disability, is entitled to free fundamental education.

Many violated this right, as the United Nations marks its first International Day for the Protection of Education from Attack. That it comes amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which drove more than 1.5 billion college students out of faculty formerly this year, makes the day especially poignant.

The U.S. violated this right also, as it is shown in September 21, 2020 – in the Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Challenging New Mexico’s More Stringent COVID-19 Capacity Limits on Private Schools than Public Schools

The Department of Justice nowadays filed a statement of activity in a New Mexico federal court docket maintaining that the State’s COVID-19 rules limiting non-public colleges to operating at 25% of capability however allowing public faculties to function at 50% of potential violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The brief, filed in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, explains that the Supreme Court has recognized parents’ academic picks for their adolescents as a crucial right beneath the Constitution and that New Mexico has no grounds for abridging that proper in adopting stricter policies for private schools than for public schools.

The proper to property or right to own property is regularly categorized as human proper for natural individuals concerning their possessions. A usual recognition of a right to personal property is found greater rarely and is usually heavily restricted insofar as property is owned by means of legal individuals and the place it is used for production as an alternative to consumption.

declarations in many states signaled that our government might are seeking to catch private property and avoid private liberties in order to assist the public effort to manipulate the pandemic and guard health and welfare.

As for the U.S. violated this right as it shown in, June 24, 2020 – Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Challenging the Constitutionality of Hawaii Governor`s COVID-19 Order that Effectively Discriminates Against Out-of-State Residents in a Manner that Harms Hawaii`s Economy.

The Justice Department filed an announcement of activity in the Hawaii federal courtroom in guide of a lawsuit filed through the potential of Nevada and California residents who very own property in Hawaii difficult a measure through Gov.

The spread of COVID-19 has precipitated federal and state governments to take measures that would have been regarded as excessive like, shutdowns of businesses, closing of borders, and curbing of large gatherings. Under most circumstances, this may be viewed as an assault on civil liberties.

As in, May 29, 2020 – Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest in Support of Businesses Suffering from Arbitrary and Irrational Restrictions of Michigan Governor’s COVID-19 Orders

And also, the violation of civil liberties was shown in May 22, 2020 – Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Challenging the Legality of Illinois Governor’s Sweeping COVID-19 Orders

Even throughout instances of crisis, government actions undertaken in the title of public security must be lawful. And while the people of Illinois must be bodily included in the consequences of this public fitness crisis, including by complying with CDC pointers their constitutionally assured rights and liberties have to be safeguarded as well.

In all these cases, the state didn`t take into consideration civil liberties, and moreover, the kingdom didn`t even consider balancing the rights with the restrictions. Even if the world is passing through a pandemic crisis, however, civil liberties usually matter!

It is fundamental that each system and the substance of any new measures handed be in compliance with human rights obligations. Consultations with civil society have to take place, if possible, earlier than new measures are adopted. Where new laws or rules are adopted, any obstacles on rights imposed must be in accordance with the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. It is inadmissible to declare blanket restrictions on human rights and critical freedoms.

In my opinion, two necessary rights need to never be limited all through pandemics.

First, defending the place of business rights to freedom of affiliation and assembly. The right to freedom of affiliation extends to the right to form labor unions and different forms of association within the workplace, and the right to freedom of peaceable meeting extends to the proper to strike. The disaster underscores the need for a place of business protections and measures that ensure the right to health of all employees.

Second, freedom of expression needs to be ensured. The right of civil society actors, inclusive of journalists and human rights defenders, to freely receive information, whether regarding the disaster or other subjects, ought to be ensured. Laws criminalizing false news as such, which have long records of abuse, along with via being deployed to target human rights defenders, must be prevented in particular.

In conclusion, the protection of man or woman’s rights ought to be a phase of any policy. Public fitness management, however, tries to stabilize potentially conflicting character and community interests. In this essay, I attempted to grant an overview of the responses of states to covid-19 towards tenets of civil liberties. The article sought to reply the query of whether or not civil liberties count in pandemics.

Are discriminatory practices tolerable if they guarantee national security? According to a study by Darren W. Davis; Brian D. Silver of the Midwest Political Science Association, “a majority of people are willing to concede some civil liberties and freedoms [in exchange for national security]…” (Davis et al., 10). Many consider national security a more basic right than civil liberties; to these people, discriminatory practices would be tolerable if national security is guaranteed. Many use the idea of national security prioritization to support ethnic profiling. This support for ethnic profiling is exemplified in the words of political author Bruce Terris, who writes, “The evidence is strong that future terrorist attacks are likely to be committed by Arabs… All nineteen of the hijackers who crashed the four planes on September 11th were Arabs… One has to be politically correct to the point of blindness not to believe that future attacks are likely to be carried out by Arabs” (Terris). There’s some common sense in this notion; with the lives of millions at stake, there’s an idea that ethnic profiling is an effective, necessary evil. Bruce Terris continues, noting, “

However, even if society values national security over civil rights, there’s no reason to employ ethnic profiling, simply because Bruce Terris is wrong. Ethnic profiling has been proven ineffective, in Spain and elsewhere. On a theoretical level, such counter-terrorism strategies are nonsensical. Countless terrorist groups The Strategies for Effective Police Stop and Search project (STEPPS) forced Spanish law enforcement to use behavior, rather than ethnicity, to check people at an airport site. According to the study, “the rate at which officers conducted stops fell well under half, while the percentage of their stops that produced positive outcomes increased by nearly three times…” (Open Society Initiative, 16). Governments have a duty to protect their people. Morality aside, ethnic profiling doesn’t do this. Thousands of lives are at stake, and endangering national security by wasting precious resources isn’t the way to counter-terrorism. A simple facade — the facade of ethnic profiling comes toppling down. If it isn’t effective if it doesn’t catch terrorists, then why does it exist? The answer; its sole purpose is to perpetrate discrimination, to make societies feel safe, and to maintain a culture of prejudice that has existed for centuries. 9.6 to 1. The quintessence of ineffective ethnic profiling. Morrocan was investigated at disproportionate rates, no more likely to have ties to terrorism than any Spanish person. Any statistic will prove — it’s simple discrimination. It’s simple prejudice. It’s wholly ineffective.

In today’s technology age and the world that one lives in today, there is a question that one is thinking about, which is more crucial to individuals today, civil liberties, or feeling secure in one surroundings? The debate on this issue goes far more than one cellphone or computer, but exactly how to create a sense of balance between one liberty and one security. Surveillance cameras, airport screening, free speech, gun ownership, and more are some of the issues that the government and society need to work on to find a balance that protects one liberty while at the same time keeping the communities secure.

Our founders knew that power, along with greed can lead to corruption and that there was a need for a structure of checks and balances to keep that power and greed under control. Nevertheless, when a branch of the government keeps secrets from the other branches, the system does not work. The Patriot Act approved the means to improve the abilities of various agencies to detect and prevent terrorism; however, when the NSA commenced eavesdropping on millions of people’s phone records and conversations they were going too far which the federal courts agreed, which result in the creations of the USA Freedom Act that restored and modified several provision of the Patriot Act, especially imposing of limits on the bulk collections of metadata from telecommunication devices owned by U.S. citizens by the various intelligence agencies.

Technology, power, greed, terrorism, and hate are some of the factors that U.S. citizens are dealing with daily, which brings one to the question, how much of our rights are we willing to give up to be safe in today’s world? How much power should one give the government to keep one safe from a terrorist attack? How much information about oneself should we allow the government to know? These questions and more are yet to be answered by society and, most likely, will not because of the continuing changes in the world of technology and social media.

Civil Liberties Versus Security

When one talks about liberty versus security, one is also talking about how much power should we allow the government to use surveillance on the American people. The creation of new technology, smartphones, and encryption software, and so for bringing one to a new era of security and surveillance. This brings one to what this paper is about, how much liberty is one willing to give up to the government to keep one safe in today’s world,

Liberty versus Security

As we know that power and greed lead to the possibility of corruption that one can find in any business or government office. Our foundering fathers knew that this could be a problem even before our Constitution was ever written, which was why they included a system of checks and balances so the branches of our government can police each other. Nevertheless, when one branch of the government keeps secrets from another branch, that system of checks and balances does not always work (David D. Hayes, 2015).

The date 9/11 was the day America realize that the United States was not safe from the possibility of a terrorist attack on American soil. That thinking leads to the results in the indication that Americans’ commitment to keeping one democratic principle is highly dependent on other concerns and that the continuing of a significant scale threat to national or personal security can convince a substantial willingness to give up one liberty in order to feel secure in one environment, but, how much liberty is the question. In ordinary times, citizens’ concerns about civil liberties issues are likely to be remote from everyday experience, but in specific contexts, civil liberties issues, like in times after 9/11, can have immediate consequences for people’s sense of freedom and well-being. This is why Americans in some cases have accepted that at certain times there can be specific restrictions on one freedom, however, it does not give the government unlimited power over Americans, like the NAS existence of a massive eavesdropping program within the Patriot Act, which the federal courts agree was a violation of the law (David D. Hayes, 2015), which in turn spearhead the creation of the U.S Freedom Act to curb those abuses of powers. Even know that there was an abuse of power, America still found a balance between liberty and security.

Liberty versus PRISM Surveillance

PRISM is an intelligence-gathering program that involves the collection of emails, instant message chats, and videos from major tech companies such as Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple for possible communication by foreign intelligence operatives, by NSA and shares with other agencies such as the CIA or the FBI (Ellen Nakashima, 2016)There were concerns raised about how the program rules allow the FBI to query that data from Americans for any unlawful purpose including those not related to foreign intelligence. There was so much concern that a public advocate asks the court to look into this since there were no requirements that it has any relation to national security and does not comply with the fourth amendment, nevertheless under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act it does expressly requires that the government permit to the retention of data that is evidence of a crime, even if it has nothing to do with foreign intelligence or national security (Ellen Nakashima, 2016). What one is talking about here is that Big Brother is listening to one communication.

Liberty versus the New Culture of Security and Surveillance.

We no longer live in the cold war era, where one knew who the enemy was. 9/11 changed how one defines the nature of security, and with the creation of new technology comes a new way of surveillance. The redefinition of security as the protection against one enemy is by preemption, deterrence, and retaliation by the use of regulation, legal, and judicial means, which gave more power to law enforcement and intelligence at the same time taking away one privacy the intrusion into a social contract that is based upon transparency into private lives by means of technology surveillance (Hille Haker 2015). Here one talking about what one does in everyday practice, such as communication to shopping, internet surfing, health-related issues, religious expression, or political activism can be watched over by those in law enforcement or intelligence fields. Even one walking down the street is being surveillance by cameras on homes in stores, in public places, on street corners, or by other people taking pictures of themselves on their phones in what is known as a surveillance society. The problem here is that this type of surveillance does not discriminate between those who may threaten security and those who live with the fact that no matter where they go, being are surveilled.

The trade-off between liberty and the new culture of security and surveillance needs to be ethically sound; unfortunately, today, that is not so, which is why the need for ethical surveillance practices. Meaning they need to analyze the connection between security and surveillance technologies as a reflection of a particular concept of security based on liberty and security. Rather than trading off liberty and freedom for security, one needs to understand that security inevitably demands and promotes the liberty of those whose lives are secured, meaning ethics surveillance must confront the new culture with its normative principles but also with the principle of protecting liberty (Hille Haker 2015).

Conclusion

While it is true that 9/11 does change how one sees the changes in how security and surveillance measures are being used today by the government, one still needs to have some form of self-security, meaning protection from the prying eyes of others into one personal information. This brings the need for security ethics that is grounded in the mutual concept of liberty and the need to be protected by the government. Unfortunately, social media and technology used by people every day for lawful purposes are also used by various terrorist groups and the criminal element for unlawful purposes or for government employees to gather dirt on a political opponent like what is done today, which is why there the need for transparency and ethical surveillance.

Coming back to the question, how much liberty or rights is one willing to give up to the government to keep one safe in today’s world? The answer can be more straightforward if one realizes that security and surveillance cannot be secure by just any means but through ethical transparency and supervision that protect the liberty, rights, and freedom of people. Meaning, yes, government agencies, from Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, or any other letter agencies, should work together to share information gathered by the use of utilizing technology means or any means for that matter that protects one from possible terrorist attacks, or from the criminal elements, while at the same time protects one civil liberty from misuse by employing transparency and ethical surveillance.

Liberalism is the belief in individual freedom due to historical repression and exploitation found previously in society and still to this day. It promotes ideologies of self-interest, but due to societal circumstances has progressed though time into many different strands of liberalism. These include classic liberalism and modern liberalism: classic liberalism is a political ideology that advocates civil liberties, under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Modern liberalism is believed to be a progression of classic liberalism; it combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy. Although these two forms of liberalism may not sound too juxtaposing, the differentiation lies in their ideology surrounding the role of the state and the economy. In this essay, I will be addressing the conflicting ideologies of classic and modern liberals and the role that they believe the state should play in today’s society.

Classic liberals tend to focus on the progression of individualism in a free capital market. They believe in natural law and the view that the state should provide intervention in order to maintain civil liberties and regulate discrimination. This is believed to be achieved through higher funding in the military and policing as they feel that the state’s role is to offer terms of protection for all social classes, but that equality should be regulated in civil liberties and economic prosperity should be determined by an individual success in the free market. In other words, classic liberals perceive the state as the issue but still respect its authority in terms of law; this promotes privatised healthcare and education and often relies on charity. These privatised systems are believed contribute to the overall competitive nature seen today while also promoting voluntary good will. This naturally provides a resistance to government and corporatism because they are seen to reduce the freedom in the country and narrow the free market. Which may lead to further reduction in individualism, which is the core basis for classic liberal ideology.

In continuation, modern liberals also known as social liberals core goal is to find a balance between individual liberties and social justice, while still accepting the modern development of the free market. Meaning they feel that current circumstances and modern political issues should be addressed by the state directly in a democratic fashion, while not taking away the capital ideologies of a free market in order to continue national economic prosperity. This is to be competed through the means of higher income tax specifically targeted at economically thriving individuals in society, in order to provide higher income. Therefore, the state can provide economic welfare for minorities and vulnerable members of society. As modern liberals in terms of rights require action from others (the state) in order to combat political issues such as poverty, unemployment and public health in the overall goal to achieve social justice and reduce the class divide in today’s society.

Overall modern and classic liberals although seem to have mixed feelings, can agree on the same concepts in terms or freedom and civil liberties. The differentiation stems from the way in which the common goal is achieved. For example, classic liberals still feel that combatting poverty, unemployment and public health issues are a high priority, but feel the way to achieve these ambitions are through progression of the individual. As a pose to classic liberals who feel these political issues should be the government’s responsibility in order to contribute to social justice. Yet the conflicting roots stem from ideology regarding economics as classic liberalism sides with very capitalist views whereas modern liberalism seems to side with origins surrounding unity with more communistic traits.

In conclusion, although both strands of liberalism correlate ideology in terms of civil liberties and freedom. It is clear to see a high amount of conflict in terms of economic progression for the individual and state as a whole. I have come to this conclusion as I feel the key divider is due to economic self-interest. With classic liberals believing in individualism In terms of the free market where as modern liberals, still accepting the undeniable terms of the modern capital market feel that the state should be the main provider for equality and social justice.

The history of the First President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev’s almost 30-year rule in independent Kazakhstan was one of creeping authoritarianism, a hurdle in the early years of independence, when the nation – like most of the post-Soviet world – briefly flirted with the idea of establishing Western-style democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The departure of Nursultan Nazarbayev opens a window of opportunity for change in the problematic human rights record of the country, and there are signs that the new administration may grab it if it determines that this is in its interests. Tokayev, who became a president of the country after Nazarbayev’s resignation, describes himself as a “reformer.”1 He reassured that he will open discussion line with civil society; agreed to liberalize restrictive laws restricting the right to protest; and permitted several demonstrations.

Kazakhstan’s violations of democratic and civil liberties are routinely ignored by the West for purposes of expediency. Newly elected Kassym-Jomart Tokayev is proposing a more inclusive policy, but he still has a lot to do to ensure that the regime is serious about liberalization, especially when it comes to civil liberties. The first years after independence of the country saw the emergence of a new-born Kazakh non- profit sector operating independently from the state but highly dependent on Western donors. At that time, about 400 non-governmental organizations were set up with financial and operational funding from the international donor community, supplying them with substantial grants and capacity-building training. In this first step, non-governmental organizations developed their objectives throughout accordance with the goals of foreign donors, concentrating in particular on the advancement of the human rights and democracy agenda along with environmental issues.

Generally, civil society in Kazakhstan has been fairly prosperous until the early 2000s: there have been no strict restrictions on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) functioning as a democratic tax-free entity since 2000. However, official fears of civil society rose in 2003–2005, as repressive post-Soviet states (with Russia leading the way, naturally) started to accuse Western-funded democracy-promoting NGOs of fomenting “color revolutions” (Hinkle, 2017: 23). Unlike Russia, Kazakhstan has not omitted international non-profits for human rights activism.

However, as the idea that “color revolutions” represented an existential threat to authoritarian regimes became a common notion, the government began to look more closely at organizations promoting democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law (Pierobon, 2016). Government-led attempts to control civil society have escalated since 2004, when many autonomous Organizations were not invited to join the new National Commission on Democracy and Civil Society. The government is now using a mix of financial incentives and coercion to get NGOs into line. Since 2015, the legal environment has become more stringent, with charity support being expected to move through a state-run agency. This helps the authorities to choosewhich organisations are eligible for funding. Nazarbayev dismissed the request of 60 charities toveto this rule.3 In 2016, burdensome rules on the reporting of funds were imposed, adding substantially to the pressure of enforcement on civil society.

The Government is implementing a top-down model of collaboration with civil society. This strategy has grown into what is often described as an “astro-turf” paradigm – i.e. a virtual community engagement – in which GONGOs (government-organized NGOs) and super- GONGOs (GONGO affiliates) are incestuously associated with the government. Independent groups, especially those pushing pro-democracy causes, are viewed with suspicion and face pressure in various forms, including unjustified tax inspections and media defamation campaigns.4 In July 2019, activists and journalists were targeted by the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, a well-known NGO, in conditions that sparked fears of government complicity.

Civil society in Kazakhstan is viewed by the authorities more as a vassal to further government policy than as an individual entity. Under Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan broke from any real commitment to building a thriving democratic civil society in favor of a paradigm in which NGOs and other non-profit groups work under not only political oversight but government control.

There is a chance for change with Tokayev becoming the president. He professed to see civil society as a problem-solving tool, and vowed that the state should respond to positive demands. In July 2019, the National Council of Public Trust was set up to build a consensus on the principle in “pluralism of view.” While critical voices are included, most of the members of the new council are government supporters, raising concerns as to whether this will become an open venue for meaningful debate, or a talking shop to build a forum for discussion.6

As for now, fundamental freedoms have been harshly restricted on an ongoing basis. Civil society leaders, writers, demonstrators and others, who oppose the officials in government encounter threats and abuse, as well as prosecution on charges brought against their lawful practice of freedom of expression, affiliation and assembly. The repression of political and civil liberties exposes deep-seated instability within the government. Widespread abuses of political and civil liberties ring alarm bells for the future: if the government continues to silence dissension, widespread resentment will begin to simmer. At a time of political instability, if dissension is not resolved by mediation rather than coercion, the effects will be volatile and potentially harmful to Kazakhstan. The bubble resentment can explode any time.

Bibliography

1. Lillis, Joanna (2015): Kazakhstan: Campaigners Urge Nazarbayev to Veto NGO Law. Eurasianet, https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-campaigners-urge-nazarbayev-to-veto-ngo-law, last downloaded on 10/03/2020.
2. Lillis, Joanna (2017): Kazakhstan: Space for Civil Society Shrinking? Eurasianet, https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-space-for-civil-society-shrinking, last downloaded on 10/03/2020.
3. Hinkle, Katherine (2007): Russia’s Reactions to The Color Revolutions. Dudley Knox Library, Monterey.
4. Pierobon, Chiara (2016): The Development of State-Civil Society Relations in Kazakhstan. University of Bielefeld, Germany.
5. Simmons, Ann (2019): Kazakhstan’s Newly Elected Leader Calls Himself a ‘Reformer’. WSJ, https://www.wsj.com/articles/kazakhstans-newly-elected-leader-calls-himself-a-reformer-11560452047, last downloaded on 10/03/2020.
6. https://rus.azattyq.org/a/kazakhstan-tokayev-protests-law/30003748.html
7. https://www.rferl.org/a/gang-of-women-attack-journalists-at-press-conference-in-kazakhstan/30068865.html
8. https://www.rferl.org/a/gang-of-women-attack-journalists-at-press-conference-in-kazakhstan/30068865.html
9. https://www.wsj.com/articles/kazakhstans-newly-elected-leader-calls-himself-a-reformer-11560452047

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kazakhstans-newly-elected-leader-calls-himself-a-reformer-11560452047

There have been many issues of discrimination and unequal treatment for hundreds of years. It has only been until recently that those who have been brought down are now getting a chance to have their voices heard. This was all possible through the implementation of civil rights and civil liberties. These rights and liberties are protected by the U.S. government in a variety of ways. I will also be diving into the distinct levels of scrutiny and how they are used in our court system.

To start, I would like to define civil rights and civil liberties individually. Civil rights are pledges to treat each person equally regardless of race, gender, and sex. Whereas civil liberties are limits on the government that prohibit them from legally intruding on freedoms granted to American citizens. A similarity that can be compared between the two is that both civil rights and civil liberties serve to protect citizens and treat them fairly. Another similarity that can be identified between the two is that the Bill of Rights protects both civil liberties and rights. Civil liberties are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment under the due process clause. This clause declares that no state can, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Additionally, in Artice 1, Section 9, these liberties are also protected under the habeas corpus and the restriction of passing bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. On the other hand, civil rights are protected by the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. This clause claims that no state can, “deny to any person to its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” Another protection can be highlighted in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which demands that the government treat people equally.

Moving forward, some many restrictions and obligations were put into effect by exercising new civil rights liberties. For instance, the Fifteenth Amendment requires that African American men have the right to vote. Additionally, the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote. The twenty-fourth amendment eliminated poll taxes, which made it much easier for black people to vote. Conversely, within civil liberties, it can be seen within the First Amendment that states are expected not to prevent citizens from practicing a religion even if it comes off as misleading. To add onto this, the eight amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” I want to elaborate on the latter portion of this section. States cannot torture anybody no matter the circumstances. The death penalty is a controversial topic, however nobody under the age of eighteen may be subject to the death penalty, and no penalty may be exercised unless a person was killed in the act of a crime.

As mentioned earlier, there are a variety of levels used in the court of law when deeming discriminatory laws or regulations unconstitutional. There are three types of scrutiny which are intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, and affirmative action. Intermediate scrutiny involves having the government illustrate why unequal treatment was necessary in a specific court case, rather than the individual who was mistreated. Strict scrutiny pertains to the government having to justify why they treated a group of people differently for governmental interests. Lastly, affirmative action involves the government providing new policies and programs that will benefit those who have been discriminated against in the past.

All in all, civil rights and liberties has drastically improved the lives of citizens when looking back at the discrimination people have faced in American history. There have been many laws and regulations set into place to ensure that every American is treated with respect and equity. Over the last hundred years, these regulations have brought equal treatment to African Americans, women, and Indigenous groups. Overall, many protections within the Constitution promise citizens that their rights and liberties will never be stripped from them. There is even a legal system for the basis of discrimination to ensure that each person regardless of age, race, and sex is treated fairly.

The author of the source believes in an ideal society with elements of collectivism and authoritarianism. They are critical of some of the elements of democracies, however, the system of democracy is still put into use in the source and within that some of the liberal ideas. Because of that, we can infer that the source isn’t desiring a revolutionary change. The author of the source believes that within that, the implementation of a strong leader taking charge can best work towards the common good of society as a whole. With a strong leader, they can effectively run the state and bring order and stability, as opposed to letting irrational individuals organize themselves. An individual who would agree with this idea is Thomas Hobbes, who believed that we should give our obedience to a strong leader, and that may include giving up our civil liberties. Otherwise, we will be in a “state of nature” which closely resembles civil war, a situation of universal insecurity. He believed in the idea of security over freedom. The source explains this idea by arguing that the protecting of civil liberties puts the stability of the state at risk. The idea of collectivism and working toward the common good of society is an idea shown by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He believed that the end goal of any state is the realization of the common good and the pursuit of it then enables the state to act as a moral community. Therefore, individuals must not serve in their own self-interest, but in the interest of society as a whole. Both of these philosophers somewhat go against liberal beliefs by focusing on the collective, more than the ideas involved in individualism such as the pursuit of self-interest and civil liberties. The author of the source and individuals who agrees with the author’s perspective would also most likely agree with the ideas of J.J Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, thinking that the implementation of a strong leader will bring many benefits to the state. They would follow a more collective standpoint, believing that a strong leader will help achieve this collective good, and provide efficiency and stability in the government. People who would oppose this point of view would support the ideas of liberalism and would strongly support liberal principles, such as personal rights and freedoms. They would argue the fact that the perspective of the source goes against the ideas of democracy as it represents liberal thought but the idea of the over-excessive importance of civil liberties goes against that. Another argument that may be presented is that the need to protect civil liberties does not result in undermining the stability of the state, but actually enhance it by providing a sense of accountability from the government. Based on my analysis of the source, I believe that the perspective of the source should not be embraced, and argue that the need and protection of civil liberties do ultimately bring stability to our society.

A lot of the time, the idea of a strong leader is connected with authoritarian regimes, as opposed to liberal democracy. The idea of a “strong leader” in general explains how they are passionate about the higher purpose of everything they do, and how each target fulfills their big mission. The danger in that is that it can go in two very opposite directions. An individual who has a very strong set of belief systems being elected in a democratic state may lead to the overthrowing of that government; those strong beliefs lead to strong leadership. And within that, disaster can unfold, as we saw in Germany under Hitler’s rule. Before he came to power, the country was practicing a democratic form of government in the Reichstag. However, during the Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash, Hitler used that economic crisis to his advantage. The economic crisis created stagnation and panic in Germany, it inevitably added to political instability. Because the current government was fairly ineffective and corrupt, there was a rise in contrasting ideologies such as Hitler’s and the Nazi party. That rise of support occurred as a result of Hitler using people’s vulnerable state and making it seem as if he had the “answer” to all of the problems their nation was facing. He demonstrated a strong presence in a time of weakness, and as a result of that, he had a following who saw him as the best choice to solve their problems. Thus, the people of Germany elected him into the Reichstag. Later on, in the early part of his now leadership, Hitler did help reestablish Germany’s economy to a much better state and things were finally looking better in Germany; until the Holocaust. The negative connotation of a “strong leader” took over. Hitler inappropriately used his power and strong leadership skills to lead to the mass murder of not only 141,500 Jews in Germany; but 5,860,129 Jews around the world. It all began with the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler those excessive dictatorial powers, going completely against all liberal practices and beliefs present in a democracy. The idea of democracy was completely thrown out the window. After that, this “strong leader” began his mission of exterminating the entire population of Jews. Hitler was an excellent motivator and public speaker, and he twisted people’s minds into thinking that it was their goal to get rid of the Jews, not his own personal one. He wanted to strike that collective interest, that they were working towards a common good, they were all in it together. This continued on into World War II, which once again lead Germany into ruins. The danger of electing a strong leader, especially in a liberal democracy, is that their overall personality and leadership skills can lead to overambition, and them wanting to do what they want to do, and achieve what they want to achieve; rather than focusing on the common good of their society. Hitler suspended the civil liberties of people in Germany and did not provide stability, in fact it lead to the exact opposite, ruining their country once more. If those rights and freedoms weren’t taken away, German citizens could have had the ability to express dissent towards Hitler and his actions, and if they were well enough protected in the first place Jews wouldn’t have faced these atrocities at all. That is why in democracies, it is important to protect civil liberties in order to ensure the stability of the state.

The European convention of human rights is a product of the council for European an international organization on human rights (consisting of 47 member states). The primary purpose of the council was to foster human rights around the world and the secondary purpose was to protect the rule of law. In order to insure the effective application of ECHR it also formed the European court of human rights are dealing with the breaches of rights granted under ECHR. The UK also signs with ECHR which is now available in the shape of the Human Right Act. This essay will discuss the significance and the effect of HRA on the legal protection of civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

Since the UK is a dualist state i.e. having a separation between international obligations and domestic law. Any international treaty is signed is required to be transported via an Act of parliament for it to be directly applicable in the UK. ECHR initially was not ratified because of this claiming the remedy of ECHR was always an expensive and lengthy procedure meaning that it was the remedy of last resort i.e. first going through all UK national courts and then claiming the right in ECHR. Labour government in 1988 won the elections with slogans of bringing rights home and came up with the Human Rights Act. UK adopted 15th out of 18th conventional rights after which the rights are directly effective in the UK national court. There is an ongoing debate in UK that HRA is not a sufficient tool for protecting the civil liberties insured in the ECHR.

Among the important section of the HRA section, 2 duty bounds the national courts to take into account ECHR precedents. The problem with this section is that it is unclear whether it is binding on the courts to follow ECHR or that is discretionary. In AF case Lord Hoffmann states that we are bound by ECHR precedents because of signing the international orders, on the other hand in Pinnock’s case Lord Neuberger it cannot be binding since such can dissolve the mutual relationship of constructive dialogue although Lord Neuberger’s approach seems here reasonable as if the UK national courts are duty bound to follow ECHR they will be no dialogue in section 2 the confusion as to which the approach is appropriate, is still there.

In Hirst v ECtHR held section 4 of the representation of peoples act to be in breach of article 3 of ECHR (right to vote), as under the statute provision prisoners are legally incapable of voting in any parliamentary or local elections. Latter the joint committee on human rights wrote that the UK should take urgent action on reforming the law relating to prisoners’ right to vote. In Scoppola v Italy ECtHR gave a six-month deadline to UK for a change in law, but no action was being taken. However, the situation relating to the prisoner’s right to vote still remains unchanged in the UK. This suggests that the UK courts are not duty-bound to follow ECHR but if so is the case civil liberties are not well protected in Human Right Acts because the UK court do not follow the ECtHR all the time.

Section 3(1) states interpret national law as far as in compliance with the ECHR. The ambiguity once again arrives in the statutory wording of section 3 as the question arises what limits do the courts do need to follow while interpreting national law in compliance with the ECHR? In Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza statutory tenancy under the rent act was only available for heterosexual couples homosexual couples claimed that the rent act was conflicting with article 8 of ECHR (right to family) the court read down the provision is such way that the statutory tenancy under the rent act includes homosexual couples as well. Although this reflects better protection of civil liberties but also faces criticism that the courts are going too far as the re-writing of statutory provisions imposing serious threat to parliament supremacy and the separation of powers. In another case of Wilkinson v RC section 262 of the income and cooperation act, the tax allowing was only available for widows. A widower was claiming the breach of article 14 of ECHR (discrimination on the basis of sex). The court held that the act is brim full of indications, not intended to include the masculine this shows that the court do not go too far in making the national law convention comply they only do so where there is room for it. This suggests us that section 3 ensures the protection of civil liberties but that is still in the hands of the court and the court attempts to strike a balance between the national law and the rights under the ECHR.

As of section 4 the courts may grant the declaration of incapability (DOI) if compliance is not possible. The problem attached to this section is that it is in discretion of courts to grant DOI, they are not duty bound by it. In the case of Bellinger v Bellinger transsexual appealed that she was not validly married to her husband because in fact of law she was men under the section 11(c) of matrimonial cause act, breaching articles 18 and 12 the court excepting the breach granted DOI the parliament then remedying the law under gender recognition act. Considering this case DOI seems a workable methodology to help reform the law and protect civil liberties.

However, in the case of R Dickinson v ministry of justice section, 2 of the suicide act stating assisting suicide is a criminal offense claimant was claiming breach of article 8 the court held that it is inappropriate to issue DOI before giving parliament an opportunity to discuss the law. Whether this approach is reasonable or not is to put aside such behavior reflects uncertainty in the application of DOI since the court can decide not to grant the DOI, this provides evidence that section 4 fails to protect civil liberties in an efficient manner.

In the case of Belmarsh, the issue concerning the detention of foreign prisoners without trial under the anti-terrorism crime and security act was held incompatibility with articles 5 and 14. The court granted DOI but the home secretary was not required to release the prisoners nor was it consider necessary to compensate them. This provides evidence that the DOI is completely a useless tool as far as civil liberties are concerned. Since the DOI is only an indication for the parliament that the statutory provisions is not in compliance with the ECHR. It was nothing to do with the right of the effective parties. If there is a bill of Rights, the national courts will not find any hesitation in setting aside the conflicting national law.

Section 6 of HRA duty bounds the public authorities in there action are made duty bound to be in line with the rights of UK citizens protected under the ECHR. But practically speaking section 6 is nothing more than a formality for the public authorities they always or most of the time are able to justify their action on the grounds of public policy, where the court disregards the breach of section 6 of HRA as this can be seen in Shabana begum case, where school uniform policy even though conflicting with claimants right to freedom of thought was held justifiable.

There is an ongoing debate in the UK that the UK should adopt its own bill of rights as the Court’s approach towards the HRA favors the UK`s democracy more and that often results in the breach and compromise of conventional rights. The UK attempts to strike a balance between the Rule of Law or upholding Fundamental Rights and the Parliamentary Supremacy of UK, but by doing this, the court favoring UK`s democracy violates the aims and objectives of the convention. But this never means that UK want their own Bill of Rights as doing so would result in an entire switch in the constitutional framework of UK, and the Westminster Parliament would never want that. A better version of HRA can resolve this problem and bring efficient incorporation of ECHR in the national Courts.