Not exact matches
Semicompatibilism abandons regulative control (the sort of
freedom that involves genuine access to alternative possibilities) and
asserts that
humans have only guidance control.
Liberty of soul and
freedom to change one's religious affiliation are
human rights that should be
asserted on behalf of all.
It
asserts that «recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world.»
Nevertheless, while acknowledging that this notion of
freedom in its individualistic extreme can not remain uncriticized, we must also
assert that the sense of personal
human dignity is very much a feature of any modern definition of
human existence and can not be facilely discarded.
A number of dictatorial countries» including some that
Freedom House has ranked among the worst violators of
human rights» flatly
asserted that individual rights must remain subservient to those of the state, a stipulation that, if accepted, would effectively strip the individual citizen of his rights.
Or is the way of Ivan and his theological rebellion one of holding to God for fear of annihilation, but hating him and his world, and with equal passion
asserting the reality of a
human freedom that he denies by his quixotic behavior at the time of the trial?
«By
asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction, the Drip bill could provide unintended justification for such actions by other governments, including those that seek to limit
freedom of expression and other
human rights online.
He
asserts that before the 1700s, Westerners saw truth as coming from God and king, and that only after then did «the idea that
humans were individuals with the
freedom of rational choice» start to become acceptable.
Environmentalism, whether it is setting fire to laboratories (so much for science then) or campaigning for laws to restrict
human freedom, is a desperate search for meaning, in the same way that setting fire to things is a desperate attempt to
assert control over a confusing world.
France, a decision last month of the European Court of
Human Rights (Application n o 36769 / 08), is interesting in that it
asserts a legally relevant tension between copyright law and the
freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention, which provides: