Special rights: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 1 edit by 2603:7000:CC00:8FF:F93A:B091:F8B1:42BD (talk) to last revision by FrescoBot |
|||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Political rights given to some groups}} |
|||
'''Special rights''' is a term originally used by [[libertarianism|libertarians]] <!--in the USA, right?--> to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups |
'''Special rights''' is a term originally used by [[conservatism|conservatives]] and [[libertarianism|libertarians]] <!--in the USA, right?--> to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups that are not extended to other groups.<ref name="Hamowy">{{cite encyclopedia |last= Mack|first= Eric|authorlink= |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |title=Individual rights |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |accessdate= |edition= |year=2008 |publisher= [[SAGE Publications]], [[Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, California |isbn= 978-1-4129-6580-4 |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 |pages=245–47 |doi= 10.4135/9781412965811.n150|quote= }}</ref> Ideas of special rights are controversial, as they clash with the principle of [[equality before the law]]. |
||
Potential examples of special rights include [[affirmative action]] policies or [[hate crime]] legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities |
Potential examples of special rights include [[affirmative action]] policies or [[hate crime]] legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities or state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation from those who are not married.{{cn|date=October 2018}} However, the term has often been extended to include some policies that are only seeking simple equality, such as [[LGBT]] rights, and some other civil rights movements. |
||
Concepts of ''special rights'' are closely aligned with notions of [[group rights]] and [[identity politics]]. |
Concepts of ''special rights'' are closely aligned with notions of [[group rights]] and [[identity politics]].{{cn|date=October 2018}} |
||
==Other uses== |
==Other uses== |
||
More recently, [[social conservatism|social conservatives]] have used the term to more narrowly refer to measures that extend existing rights for heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, such as in the case of [[same sex marriage]], or that include sexual orientation as a civil rights minority group.{{ |
More recently, [[social conservatism|social conservatives]] have used the term to more narrowly refer to measures that extend existing rights for heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, such as in the case of [[same sex marriage]], or that include sexual orientation as a civil rights minority group.<ref>{{cite book|last=Stone|first=Amy|title=Gay Rights At The Ballot Box|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=80iFUEYi8Q4C&q=%22gay+rights%22+%22special+rights%22&pg=PA25|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|accessdate=June 10, 2013|location=Minneapolis|page=25|year=2012|isbn=9780816675470}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Tashman|first=Brian|title=Perkins Labels LGBT-Rights Initiative a 'Radical' Push for 'Special Rights for Homosexuals and Homosexuality'|date=12 March 2012|url=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perkins-labels-lgbt-rights-initiative-radical-push-special-rights-homosexuals-and-homosexual|publisher=People for the American Way|accessdate=June 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Cobb|first=Michael|title=God Hates Fags: The Rhetorics of Religious Violence|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CHmSAL3UryQC&q=%22colorado+for+family+values%22+%22special+rights%22&pg=PA41|publisher=NYU Press|accessdate=June 10, 2013|pages=41|date=June 1, 2006|isbn=9780814772669}}</ref> |
||
The term is also used internationally{{Citation needed|date=January 2022}}. In [[German language|German]] the term ''Sonderrechte'' |
|||
[[:de:Sonderrecht|(de)]], with the same literal meaning, is used in senses like 'privileges', 'special legislations' or 'special exemptions'.<ref>[https://www.dwds.de/wb/Sonderrecht Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Accessed 2021-01-11]</ref> |
|||
==Legal argument== |
==Legal argument== |
||
The basis behind the argument of the term is based on whether it should be considered just and legal for a law to |
The basis behind the argument of the term is based on whether it should be considered just and legal for a law to treat various parties unequally. For example, in the [[US Constitution]] the prohibition on [[bills of attainder]] require that laws do not single out a single person or group of persons for specific treatment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Constitution of the United States: Article 1, Section 9 | url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.9.3 | accessdate=2008-11-24 }}</ref> |
||
Another example is the [[equal protection clause]] in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. Both sides argue that the other side is or has traditionally been singled out and |
Another example is the [[equal protection clause]] in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]. Both sides argue that the other side is or has traditionally been singled out and so the law is either needed or unnecessary. |
||
In some cases, such as those with social implications, the universal definition of rights also often conflict with other, often more regional or local, laws that require certain public standards or behavior based on cultural norms.<ref>{{cite news | first=Ioanna | last=Kucaradi | title=Universality Versus Particularity? In The Light Of Epistemological Knowledge Of Norms | publisher=United Nations University | accessdate=2008-11-24 | url=http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/papers/kucuradi-s5.pdf }}</ref> |
|||
==Libertarianism on rights and special rights== |
==Libertarianism on rights and special rights== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | <blockquote>A too-ready acceptance of alleged rights leads to an oppressive list of enforceable obligations. As the list of others' rights grows, each of us is subject to a growing burden made up of the obligations correlative to those rights; correspondingly the ability of rights to be protective of individual choice dissolves. Moreover, as the list of rights grows, so too does the legitimate role of political and legal institutions, and the libertarian case for radically limiting the scope and power of such institutions withers away. Libertarian theories of rights avoid generating an oppressive list of obligations through the employment of two crucial distinctions – the distinction between negative and positive rights and the distinction between general and special rights.<ref name="Hamowy"/> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | <blockquote>A too-ready acceptance of alleged rights leads to an oppressive list of enforceable obligations. As the list of others' rights grows, each of us is subject to a growing burden made up of the obligations correlative to those rights; correspondingly the ability of rights to be protective of individual choice |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
==Definition of minorities== |
==Definition of minorities== |
||
[[Minority rights]] advocacy groups often contend that such protections confer no special rights, and describe these laws instead as protecting [[Civil rights|equal rights]],<ref name="glaad">{{cite web|url=http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/offensive.php|title=Offensive Terminology to Avoid|publisher=GLAAD|accessdate=2006-05-30 |archiveurl = |
[[Minority rights]] advocacy groups often contend that such protections confer no special rights, and describe these laws instead as protecting [[Civil rights|equal rights]],<ref name="glaad">{{cite web|url=http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/offensive.php|title=Offensive Terminology to Avoid|publisher=GLAAD|accessdate=2006-05-30 |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20060301110310/http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/offensive.php <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2006-03-01}}</ref> due to past conditions or legal privileges for specific groups. |
||
===Sexual orientation as a civil rights minority group=== |
|||
[[Ralph E. Reed, Jr.|Ralph Reed]], Republican political strategist and former executive director of the [[Christian Coalition of America|Christian Coalition]], which opposes the extension of rights to sexual minorities, said "No one should have special rights or privileges, or minority status because of their sexual behavior. We don't have it for people who are polygamists, we don't have it for people who have affairs on their wives or husbands."<ref name="gay_agenda">{{cite web|url=http://facstaff.buffalostate.edu/netzhaec/gayagn2.htm|title="The Gay Agenda" and "Gay Rights, Special Rights" and the Construction of a Homosexual Role|publisher=Buffalo State|accessdate=2007-02-24}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
* [[ |
* [[Civil Rights]] |
||
* [[ |
* [[Homophobia]] |
||
* [[ |
* "[[Homosexual agenda]]" |
||
* [[Homosexual agenda]] |
|||
* [[Human rights]] |
* [[Human rights]] |
||
* [[Marriage Equality]] |
|||
* [[Prerogative|Prerogative rights]] |
* [[Prerogative|Prerogative rights]] |
||
* [[Qualified immunity]] |
|||
'''Potential Examples:''' |
'''Potential Examples:''' |
||
| Line 39: | Line 42: | ||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
|||
<references/> |
|||
[[Category:Political |
[[Category:Political terminology]] |
||
[[Category:Libertarian terms]] |
|||
[[Category:Equality rights]] |
[[Category:Equality rights]] |
||
[[Category:Affirmative action]] |
[[Category:Affirmative action]] |
||
Latest revision as of 00:42, 18 October 2023
Special rights is a term originally used by conservatives and libertarians to refer to laws granting rights to one or more groups that are not extended to other groups.[1] Ideas of special rights are controversial, as they clash with the principle of equality before the law.
Potential examples of special rights include affirmative action policies or hate crime legislation with regard to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities or state recognition of marriage as a group with different taxation from those who are not married.[citation needed] However, the term has often been extended to include some policies that are only seeking simple equality, such as LGBT rights, and some other civil rights movements.
Concepts of special rights are closely aligned with notions of group rights and identity politics.[citation needed]
Other uses
[edit]More recently, social conservatives have used the term to more narrowly refer to measures that extend existing rights for heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, such as in the case of same sex marriage, or that include sexual orientation as a civil rights minority group.[2][3][4]
The term is also used internationally[citation needed]. In German the term Sonderrechte (de), with the same literal meaning, is used in senses like 'privileges', 'special legislations' or 'special exemptions'.[5]
Legal argument
[edit]The basis behind the argument of the term is based on whether it should be considered just and legal for a law to treat various parties unequally. For example, in the US Constitution the prohibition on bills of attainder require that laws do not single out a single person or group of persons for specific treatment.[6]
Another example is the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Both sides argue that the other side is or has traditionally been singled out and so the law is either needed or unnecessary.
In some cases, such as those with social implications, the universal definition of rights also often conflict with other, often more regional or local, laws that require certain public standards or behavior based on cultural norms.[7]
Libertarianism on rights and special rights
[edit]In The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Eric Mack states:
A too-ready acceptance of alleged rights leads to an oppressive list of enforceable obligations. As the list of others' rights grows, each of us is subject to a growing burden made up of the obligations correlative to those rights; correspondingly the ability of rights to be protective of individual choice dissolves. Moreover, as the list of rights grows, so too does the legitimate role of political and legal institutions, and the libertarian case for radically limiting the scope and power of such institutions withers away. Libertarian theories of rights avoid generating an oppressive list of obligations through the employment of two crucial distinctions – the distinction between negative and positive rights and the distinction between general and special rights.[1]
Definition of minorities
[edit]Minority rights advocacy groups often contend that such protections confer no special rights, and describe these laws instead as protecting equal rights,[8] due to past conditions or legal privileges for specific groups.
See also
[edit]- Civil Rights
- Homophobia
- "Homosexual agenda"
- Human rights
- Marriage Equality
- Prerogative rights
- Qualified immunity
Potential Examples:
References
[edit]- ^ a b Mack, Eric (2008). "Individual rights". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Cato Institute. pp. 245–47. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n150. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- ^ Stone, Amy (2012). Gay Rights At The Ballot Box. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 25. ISBN 9780816675470. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
- ^ Tashman, Brian (12 March 2012). "Perkins Labels LGBT-Rights Initiative a 'Radical' Push for 'Special Rights for Homosexuals and Homosexuality'". People for the American Way. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
- ^ Cobb, Michael (June 1, 2006). God Hates Fags: The Rhetorics of Religious Violence. NYU Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780814772669. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
- ^ Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Accessed 2021-01-11
- ^ "Constitution of the United States: Article 1, Section 9". Retrieved 2008-11-24.
- ^ Kucaradi, Ioanna. "Universality Versus Particularity? In The Light Of Epistemological Knowledge Of Norms" (PDF). United Nations University. Retrieved 2008-11-24.
- ^ "Offensive Terminology to Avoid". GLAAD. Archived from the original on 2006-03-01. Retrieved 2006-05-30.