Canada and the Articles of Confederation

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains, My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter. The #MeToo movement. Over the past decade, the United States has seen a surge in activism around civil rights, broadly defined as the right to be free from discrimination and unequal treatment in arenas such as housing, the workplace, and the criminal justice system. At times, as when activists are arrested at a protest, calls for civil rights can also be the occasion for violations of civil liberties—certain basic freedoms (e.g., freedom of speech) that are either enshrined in the Constitution or established through legal rulings. While civil rights are distinct from civil liberties, students often struggle to articulate these differences and appreciate the links between the two concepts. Complicating this distinction is the fact that historically reference materials have tended to cover either one or the other but not the two in combination. Combining these two concepts in one work is what makes a revised edition of the Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties so timely and valuable.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

American liberals believe that both civil liberties and civil rights are harmonious aspects of a basic commitment to human rights. But recently these two clusters of values have seemed increasingly to conflict – as, for example, with the feminist claim that the legal toleration of pornography, long a goal sought by civil libertarians, actually violates civil rights as a form of sex discrimination.Here I propose an interpretation of the conflict of civil rights and civil liberties in its latest manifestation: the controversy over how to treat discriminatory verbal harassment on American campuses. I was involved with the controversy in a practical way at Stanford, where I helped draft a harassment regulation that was recently adopted by the university.Like the pornography issue, the harassment problem illustrates the element of paradox in the conflict of civil-liberties and civil-rights perspectives or mentalities. This problem does not simply trigger familiar disagreements between liberals of a classical or libertarian orientation as against those of a welfare state or social democratic one – though it does sometimes do that. In my experience, the issue also has the power to appear to a single person in different shapes and suggest different solutions as it oscillates between being framed in civil-liberties and in civil-rights terms. At the same time, however, it remains recognizably the same problem. It is thus a very practical and political example of the kind of tension noted by Wittgenstein in the aphorism that heads this essay – a puzzle of interpretive framing, of “seeing-as.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the challenges governments face in balancing civil liberties against the exigencies of public health amid the chaos of a public health emergency. Current and emerging pandemic response strategies may engage diverse rights grounded in civil liberties, including mobility rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and the right to liberty and security of the person. As traditionally conceived, the discourses of civil rights and public health rest on opposite assumptions about the burden of proof. In the discourse of civil and political rights of the sort guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the onus rests on government to show that any limitation on rights is justified. By contrast, public health discourse centers on the precautionary principle, which holds that intrusive measures may be taken—lockdowns, for example—even in the absence of complete evidence of the benefits of the intervention or of the nature of the risk. In this article, we argue that the two principles are not so oppositional in practice. In testing for proportionality, courts recognize the need to defer to governments on complex policy matters, especially where the interests of vulnerable populations are at stake. For their part, public health experts have incorporated ideas of proportionality in their evolving understanding of the precautionary principle. Synthesizing these perspectives, we emphasize the importance of policy agility in the COVID-19 response, ensuring that measures taken are continually supported by the best evidence and continually recalibrated to avoid unnecessary interference with civil liberties.

Journal Article The Forty-Third Annual Meeting Get access The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 21, Issue 5, 1 May 1961, Pages 591–601, https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-21-5-591 Published: 01 May 1961

Making the ‘Invisible’ visible: Custodial violence and the civil liberties-democratic rights movement in India

Suspicion of Muslim minorities in Western countries did not start with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The post 9/ll period, however, amplified existing prejudice. Muslims have come under intense scrutiny on the chance that they might be terrorists and have been targeted by most of the counter-terrorist measures adopted since then. In the United States, the initial objective was to catch foreign radicals, as illustrated by the FBI’s massive investigation called “PENTTBOM” which sought to identify aliens involved in the attacks. Additional measures such as the Absconder Apprehension Initiative (AAl) and the implementation of the National Security Entry-Exit registration System (NSEERS), adopted in 2002, targeted foreign Muslims. The enactment of new statutory provisions designed to identify and apprehend foreign terrorists was soon followed by a catch-all strategy targeting all Muslims living in the US. Furthermore, the broad definition of what constitutes a terrorist threat (as developed by the 2001 PATRIOT Act, the 2005 REAL ID Act, and the 2007 Protect America Act) has allowed US authorities to extend the list of terrorist offenses–leading to increased infringement on civil liberties in the name of security. Governmental discrimination also fueled prejudice against Muslims by providing ajustification for anti-Muslim sentiments. A large section of the public welcomed racial/ethnic profiling and various measures limiting the civil rights and the civil liberties of Muslims as a way to improve homeland security.

Civil liberties refer to certain freedoms granted to all citizens. They have been established as bills of rights in the constitutions of such countries as the United States, India, South Africa, and Great Britain. Civil rights differ from civil liberties in that the former are expressed in statutes enacted by legislative bodies. Civil liberties limit the state's power to interfere in the lives of its citizens, whereas civil rights take a more proactive role to ensure that all citizens have equal protection. Civil liberties are most endangered during national emergencies when governments infringe on individual liberties to safeguard the nation.

Initiatives which are intended to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack may impact not only civil liberties including privacy, but civil rights or equality as well. In the present paper, we consider conceptual tradeoffs among attitudes towards security, civil liberties and civil rights, and examine the psychometric structure of these attitudes in both congressional ratings and survey data. An examination of ipsative preferences, a circumplex analysis and analyses of latent structure converge in supporting the position that tradeoffs in post‐9/11 America are multidimensional, and serve as a reminder that concerns for security are balanced by not one but two distinct motives, one concerned with freedom and civil liberties, the other with equality and civil rights.

The history of civil rights in the United States is usually analyzed and interpreted through the lenses of modern conservatism or progressive liberalism. In Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader, Jonathan Bean argues that the historical record does not conveniently fit into either of these categories and that knowledge of the American classical liberal tradition is required to gain a more accurate understanding of the past, present, and future of civil rights in the nation. By assembling and contextualizing classic documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning school assignment by race, Bean demonstrates that classical liberalism differs from progressive liberalism in emphasizing individual freedom, Christianity, the racial neutrality of the Constitution, and free-market capitalism. A comprehensive and vital resource for scholars and students of civil rights and civil liberties, Race and Liberty in America draws on a wealth of primary sources to chart the evolution of civil rights in U.S. history.

The rapid development of smart technologies and digital infrastructure has transformed the way governments and organizations monitor and manage urban environments. Smart societies rely on advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, Internet of Things devices, biometric identification systems, and large-scale data analytics to improve public services, enhance security, and optimize urban management. Digital surveillance systems have become a central component of smart city governance by enabling real time monitoring of public spaces, transportation systems, communication networks, and citizen activities. While these technologies provide numerous benefits in terms of public safety, crime prevention, and efficient resource management, they also raise significant concerns regarding privacy protection and civil liberties. Digital surveillance technologies collect and analyze vast amounts of personal and behavioral data, which may create risks related to unauthorized monitoring, data misuse, and excessive governmental control. Civil liberty advocates argue that widespread surveillance may undermine fundamental democratic principles such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to privacy. As smart societies continue to expand the use of surveillance technologies, it becomes increasingly important to understand how these systems influence public perceptions of privacy, governance transparency, and civil rights protection. This study analyzes the effect of digital surveillance systems on civil liberties within smart societies. The research develops a conceptual model that examines the relationships between digital surveillance intensity, perceived privacy risk, governance transparency, and protection of civil liberties. Data were collected from citizens, technology professionals, and policy analysts involved in smart city initiatives. Structural Equation Modeling using Smart Partial Least Squares was employed to test the relationships between constructs. The results indicate that increased digital surveillance intensity significantly raises perceived privacy risks among citizens. However, governance transparency and regulatory oversight mechanisms play a critical role in mitigating negative perceptions and protecting civil liberties. The study contributes to digital governance and technology policy research by providing empirical insights into the complex relationship between surveillance technologies and civil liberty protection in smart societies. The findings highlight the need for balanced governance frameworks that ensure security benefits while safeguarding individual rights and democratic values.

The article analyzes the forms and directions of social and charitable activities of the Roman Catholic community of Kharkov during the XIX - early XX century. Attention is drawn to the stages of creation and expansion of community through social and cultural events and defines the role of the church in the integration of the representatives of the Roman Catholic religion. The church acted as the central association of the whole community and was the organizer of all public initiatives. Focuses on the fact that Catholics acted within the Polish charitable organizations, and French, and it led to the unification of the representatives of many European Nations, who lived in Kharkov province in this period. Disclosed forms of charity, which was aimed at improving social protection, health care and the establishment of the national educational institutions. It is proved that the representatives of the community took an active part in organizing cultural and social events in the region, showed a high civil position, patriotism, providing assistance to the state during the complex socio-political processes, gave donations municipal charities organizations that operated during the First world war. Keywords: charity, the Roman Catholic community, Catholics, church, national community.

Let us keep in mind that the Mexican-American can easily become the front-line of defense of the civil liberties of ethnic minorities. The racial, cultural, and historical involvements in his case embrace those of all of the other minority groups. Yet, God bless the law, he is white! So, the Mexican-American can be the wedge for the broadening of civil liberties for others (who are not so fortunate as to be white and Christian!). George I. Sanchez (1958) By embracing whiteness, Americans have reinforced the color line that has denied people of African descent full participation in American democracy. In pursuing White rights, Americans combined Latin American racialism with Anglo racism, and in the process separated themselves and their political agenda from the Black civil rights struggles of the forties and fifties. Neil Foley (1998) (1) THE HISTORY OF RACE AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH IS complex and exciting. The history of American civil rights is also promising, particularly so in regard to understanding the role of whiteness. Both selections above, the first from a American intellectual of the mid-twentieth century and the last a recently published statement from a historian of race and identity, are nominally about whiteness. But the historical actor and the historian discuss whiteness differently. The quotation from the 1950s advocates exploiting legal whiteness to obtain civil rights for both Americans and other minority groups. The one from the 1990s views such a strategy as inherently racist. The historical figure writes of Americans and African Americans cooperating in the pursuit of shared civil rights goals; the historian writes of the absence, the impossibility of cooperation due to American whiteness. This contrast is worth further consideration. This essay examines the American civil rights movement by focusing on the work and ideas of George I. Sanchez--a prominent activist and professor of education at the University of Texas--in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Sanchez is the most significant intellectual of what is commonly referred to as the Mexican American Generation of activists during this period. As a national president of the major American civil rights organization of the era, however, Sanchez's political influence within the American community was just as important as his intellectual leadership. Sanchez pondered notions of whiteness and actively employed them, offering an excellent case study of the making of American civil rights. (2) First, this work examines how Sanchez's civil rights efforts were vitally informed by an ideological perspective that supported gradual, integrationist, liberal reform, a stance that grew out of his activist research on African Americans in the South, Americans in the Southwest, and Latin Americans in Mexico and Venezuela. This New Deal ideological inheritance shaped Sanchez's contention that Americans were one minority group among many needing governmental assistance. Second, this liberal ideology gave rise to a nettlesome citizenship dilemma. During the Great Depression and World War II, Americans' strategic emphasis on American citizenship rhetorically placed them shoulder-to-shoulder with other U.S. minority groups. It also marginalized immigrant Mexicans. The significance of citizenship was controversial within the American community and coincided with the emergence of an aggressive phase of Americans' civil rights litigation that implemented a legal strategy based on their whiteness. Third, Sanchez's correspondence with Thurgood Marshall of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the 1940s and 1950s reveals early, fragmentary connections between the American and African American civil rights movements. All these topics address important interpretive debates about the role of whiteness. …

After World War II, the Committee for Amnesty led a three-year campaign to obtain amnesty for the 6,000 US conscientious objectors (COs) sentenced to prison for their refusal to participate in the war. In addition, the Committee for Amnesty sought to win freedom for those COs who remained in prison long after the war ended. As convicted felons, prison COs were `second-class citizens' deprived of their full civil rights, including the right to vote. During World War II, social actionist COs staged dramatic work and hunger strikes to protest racism, censorship, conscription, and the myriad policies that dehumanized prison and gutted the original vision of Civilian Public Service, a program of alternative nonmilitary service. After the war, these radicalized COs applied the techniques of Gandhian nonviolent direct action, developed in prison and Civilian Public Service camps, to advance peace and justice - most notably in the anti-war, civil rights, environmental, anti-nuclear, and civil liberties movements. The amnesty campaign, which was initiated by prison COs and their friends and relatives, represented one of the first examples of this militant postwar CO activism. The Committee for Amnesty demonstrates the impact of World War II COs on the War Resisters League and the postwar radical pacifist movement. These COs - militant, absolutist-orientated, creative, and committed to direct action - shaped the methods and goals of the amnesty campaign, dividing the War Resisters League in the process. The amnesty campaign illustrates the postwar grass-roots social activism of World War II COs, their contribution to civil liberties and social reform movements, and their impact on the postwar radical pacifist movement.