Sentences with phrase «freedom in a democratic society»

They were so common at the beginning of the twentieth century that politicians like Theodore Roosevelt could «preach» them in political campaigns.9 Through contact with family units, churches have been expected to inculcate the moral integrity necessary for freedom in a democratic society.

The bill also raises serious concerns about the commitment of Nigerian lawmakers and the government to good governance and basic freedoms in a democratic society.»

Not exact matches

The exercise of rights and freedoms is limited «for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society.»

The first part deals with why the individual's right of freedom to «profess practice and propagate religion», and to convert to another faith and religion inherent in it, is a condition and guardian of all other democratic freedoms and fundamental human rights in State, society and culture.

In our free democratic society the colleges of liberal arts and sciences ought to claim and make good their right to freedom of investigation.

Thomas Farr, a Georgetown Professor of Religion and International Affairs, in an adaptation of and an article in Foreign Affairs, has argued in First Things that the fostering of democratic societies in Islamic lands must be linked with encouraging Islamic communities themselves to understand the value of religious freedom.

In his chapter on democracy, Sen argues that a democratic polity is important first because freedom is an inherent good, second because it contributes to economic well «being, and third because societies need free political debate to choose what economic «needs» to value.

In democratic society it values every individual and maintains academic freedom; in genuinely aristocratic society it seeks to cherish and nurture the excellent persons and to maintain their leadershiIn democratic society it values every individual and maintains academic freedom; in genuinely aristocratic society it seeks to cherish and nurture the excellent persons and to maintain their leadershiin genuinely aristocratic society it seeks to cherish and nurture the excellent persons and to maintain their leadership.

But instead he have to persuade Moslem newspaper all over the world not to print headlines of «Islam is under attack», instead it should print; I, Rauf has learn tolerance and freedom to change religions in America, it is very good, many (stupid) American has convert to Islam, also to print «the Muslim radical in the Muslim world» have to realize that the American troops are educating our barbarian manners into a modern democratic tolerant society such as me, Rauf has received here in America.

The freedoms of expression present democratic societies with the unwelcome news that they are in trouble, hut because all societies, like most individuals, are always in some kind of trouble, the news doesn't drive them onto the reefs of destruction.

He spoke of «democratic freedom,» «free markets,» «free trade,» «free societies,» «free governments,» «free nations,» and «an international order rooted in freedom.»

But he is still, Nadler insists, «one of history's most eloquent proponents of a secular, democratic society and the strongest advocate for freedom and toleration in the modern age.

Nevertheless the Christian doctrine of the relation between the ethics of Law and Grace, the Hindu concept of paramarthika and vyavaharika realms, the Islamic concept of shariat law versus the transcendent law, and the equivalent ones in secular ideologies like the Marxist idea of the present morality of class - war leading to the necessary love of the class-less society of the future need to be brought into the inter-faith dialogue to build up a common democratic political ethic for maintaining order and freedom with the continued struggle for social justice, and also a common civil morality within which diverse peoples may renew their different traditions of civil codes.

Emancipation from the endless discussions of committee meetings, trying to solve problems in both religious and political communities that had hitherto occupied so much of my time, was a desirable freedom from the chores of a democratic society; but it also meant an emancipation from responsibility — a doubtful boon, because responsibility engages us in the causes of moral, political and religious movements.

I really think that the freedom to make choices is key in a democratic society.

In the case of Togo, perhaps a more transparent election — an important proxy of democracy — would have allowed women greater freedom to exercise their political rights, but it wouldn't have addressed the underlying conditions of poverty and inequality that inhibit the growth of a more democratic society outside the scope of election season.

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana believes in the principles that democratic societies provide individuals with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organization, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organize effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity.

Mobilised through available democratic freedoms, it's a public protest by millions of people (the demos) who feel annoyed, powerless, no longer «held» in the arms of society.

As to the «protection of the rights and freedoms of others», the Government referred to the need to ensure «respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society», listing three values in that connection: respect for gender equality, respect for human dignity and respect for the minimum requirements of life in society (or of «living together»).

Individual freedom, freedom of speech, equal rights and possibilities for everyone, solidarity, respect and tolerance are central values in the democratic Scandinavian societies.

are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (Art. 9 (2), ECHR)

The value of freedom in the democratic liberal societies depends on the capacity to maintain the balance between the individual freedom in one way and the rest of the rights, the guarantee of which comes to limit these freedoms in one way or another (24).

Researchers and leaders for social justice, then, seek to define the theories and practices of leadership that are vital to creating greater freedom, opportunity, and justice for all citizens — citizens who, through public education, are better able to participate in and sustain a free, civil, multicultural, and democratic society.

It is a «positioning» of smoking that accurately reflects the real state of scientific knowledge — and the freedom of choice that must be allowed to every citizen in a democratic society....

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a rollback of democratic gains by Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el - Sisi, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's intensified campaign against press freedom and civil society, and further centralization of authority in China were evidence of a growing disdain for democratic standards that was found in nearly all regions of the world.

However, under Section One of the Charter, the state is authorized to legislate in order to limit this freedom when necessary to the development of democratic society.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The real war — if there is a war, some might dare to suggest that it is simply debate about policy in a democratic society — is a war against journalistic freedom to present Greens such as George Monbiot and Bob Ward as the utter lunatics they really are.

«Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism.

With reference to the right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, McGrath J pointed to s 5 which renders all fundamental rights and freedoms subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

She rightly noted that freedom of expression, while vitally important in a democratic society, is not an unqualified right.

It presages a law captured by the rhetoric of the right to freedom of expression without due regard to the value underlying the particular exercise of that right; a law in which, under the guise of the right to freedom of expression, the «right» to offend can be exercised without responsibility or restraint providing it does not cause a disruption or disturbance in the nature of public disorder; a law in which an impoverished amoral concept of «public order» is judicially ordained; a law in which the right to freedom of expression trumps — or tramples upon — other rights and values which are the vital rights and properties of a free and democratic society; a law to which any number of vulnerable individuals and minorities may be exposed to uncivil, and even odious, ethnic, sexist, homophobic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-Islamic taunts providing no public disorder results; a law in which good and decent people can be used as fodder to promote a cause or promote an action for which they are not responsible and over which they have no direct control; a law which demeans the dignity of the persons adversely affected by those asserting their right to freedom of expression in a disorderly or offensive manner; a law in which the mores or standards of society are set without regard to the reasonable expectations of citizens in a free and democratic society; and a law marked by a lack of empathy by the sensibilities, feelings and emotional frailties of people who can be deeply and genuinely affronted by language and behaviour that is beyond the pale in a civil and civilised society.

They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations; the means used to impair the right or freedom must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective - the more severe the detrimental effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measure is to be justified in a democratic society.»

In a modern, free, and democratic society, I would say there are two big debates about freedom taking place.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well - being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.»

Both of these freedoms may be made subject to limitations embodied in statutes, and which are necessary in a democratic society in order to maintain public safety, protect health or morality or to defend the rights of other persons.

The clause says that the law can permit a limitation on freedom of speech if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

As publication of opinion in the media is a matter at the core of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in a democratic society, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the exclusion of such matters from the [Ontario Human Rights] Code.

The SCC decision responded only to two constitutional questions: whether PIPA (as it was previously) violated the constitutionally - protected right to freedom of expression, and if so, whether the infringement could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It noted the requirement under Article 9 (2) that any limitation placed upon that right must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in order to serve a legitimate aim, including the rights and freedoms of others, which could be invoked by the defendant in this case.

This provision limits some rights and freedoms as may be «demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.»

While s. 293 offends the freedom of religion of identifiable groups guaranteed by s. 2 (a) of the Charter and the s. 7 liberty interests of children between 12 and 17 married into polygamy, the provision, save in its application to the latter group, is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Irwin Toy Ltd.'s challenge of a Quebec law prohibiting advertising targeted at children under thirteen years of age led the Supreme Court of Canada to an extensive analysis of the meaning of freedom of expression, and what limits on expression can be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

[260] This Charter right, like others, is subject to the limitation clause provided in s. 1 so that a limitation on freedom of conscience and religion is permissible if it is a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms as set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

v. Law Society of B.C. reviewed the disciplinary activity of the law society in B.C. over advertising practices, and emphasized the distinctions between the freedom of expression with the elective process in our democratic institutions, and that of economic free Society of B.C. reviewed the disciplinary activity of the law society in B.C. over advertising practices, and emphasized the distinctions between the freedom of expression with the elective process in our democratic institutions, and that of economic free society in B.C. over advertising practices, and emphasized the distinctions between the freedom of expression with the elective process in our democratic institutions, and that of economic free speech,

This is truth, this is the reality of CAIR, who stands before the court and demands that we «by our own hands» provide them with all the protections and liberties afforded an organization or individual who wishes to be a part of a democratic country yet have utterly no intention of abiding, now or at any time in the future, by the dictates of a lawful, democratic society which values and holds sacred, human rights, freedom, rule of law, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and many other freedoms.

Second, in Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers, the Court of Appeal reiterated that under HRA 1998 the public interest test has changed from the need to show exceptional circumstances which require disclosure of the information to a test of whether a fetter on the right of freedom of expression is «necessary in a democratic society» (para 67).

Elected officials should confirm the right balance between privacy and freedom of expression in our democratic society.

Would the reasoning in this decision be of use to a Canadian court deciding what might be a reasonable limit on freedom of expression in a free and democratic society?