Yogi Amin, partner and national head of public law at Irwin Mitchell, then spoke about recent developments in health and social care law, including the Care Act, deprivation
of liberty cases in the Court of Protection and end of life cases.
I advise on capacity, best interests and deprivation
of liberty cases, serious medical treatment cases, applications to the Court of Protection and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court, legal frameworks for packages of care for service users whose behaviour challenges and children transitioning into adult services.
Paula Barnes is heavily involved in deprivation
of liberty cases and challenging refusals of medical care.
Not exact matches
Amid the flurry
of essays on religious
liberty occasioned by the Supreme Court's hearing arguments in the Hobby Lobby
case, these two sentences from Rick Warren's otherwise excellent op - ed in the Washington Post stood out to me:
I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the
case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom
of speech, interfered with the free exercise
of religion, or infringed on a
liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»
And so a plausible
case might be made, despite the absence in ancient Rome
of direct resemblances
of modern Western constitutional
liberty, for a «Ciceronian» support
of the idea, and
of the lived sentiment,
of values to be faithfully commemorated.
And although I have argued that moral reasoning under general concepts like «
liberty» is a very uncertain business, we can still note that Texas presented a
case of criminalizing only same - sex private behavior.
If the Supreme Court focuses too narrowly on drugs in this
case and misses the larger issue
of religious ritual, it could create a devastating precedent for religious
liberty.
For one thing, to articulate that
case above all in the parlance
of religious
liberty is to approach our society defensively.
If understanding our
case as above all a matter
of protecting religious
liberty rights means that social conservatives don't think or talk that way anymore, then we are in great trouble.
Forcing the
case for this kind
of living moral alternative into the narrow confines
of an argument that is just about religion and
liberty makes the treasure we seek to protect seem smaller and less significant than it truly is.
The emphasis we are compelled now to put upon our first freedom risks distorting the moral message
of religious and social conservatives in a number
of important ways, and in the process undermining our
case for
liberty and tolerance.
Thus the particular question that has been at the heart
of a lot
of our religious
liberty cases in the past few years — the question
of whether institutions in the corporate form are entitled to religious
liberty — is not a new question for our political tradition, and the answer that tradition has often offered it is not always friendly to the cause
of contemporary traditionalists.
The state
of New York recognized, in the landmark religious
liberty case People v. Phillips (1813), that compelling a priest to testify about matters heard during confession would be a fundamental violation
of Catholics» religious
liberty:
That this is the
case should be gratifying to the Western liberal democracies who, for half a century, stood firm against the manifold onslaughts
of those who sought to snuff out the flame
of liberty.
Parkman, like Foote, wrote history from a point
of view: in Parkman's
case, the Whiggish conviction that, when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains
of Abraham in 1759, North America was won for
liberty against popish authoritarianism.
While this last argument has a distinguished pedigree, Stark puts the
case in boldest terms: «All that 18th - century philosophizing on things like individualism and
liberty was coming straight out
of 1,800 years
of Christianity.»
For in all these
cases (even the most beneficial, that
of electricity), what did the discovery lead to except the control and utilization
of forces already at
liberty in the surrounding world?
Colonial philosophy still treated the Bible with respect, but, under the influence
of the Enlightenment, colonial intellectuals began to employ arguments from nature and reason that could explain the
case for morality,
liberty, and God without appeals to revelation.
In other words, the single striking instance in which it sets itself against prevailing mores and wishes is in the
case of sexual
liberty — a
case which is perhaps dubious if it is true that a substantial proportion
of the generations which have grown up in the sexual revolution may harbor a secret desire for that «No.»
The
case represents the latest volley in a culture war
of sorts as courts and academics — not to mention employers and employees — try to reconcile the law's fundamental commitment to two principles increasingly emerging at loggerheads: religious
liberty and women's health.
«I am optimistic that these
cases will eventually snake their way back up to the Supreme Court and given a full hearing on the merits
of the
case, I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor
of religious
liberty,» Ferguson said.
Undaunted, the supposed guardians
of civil
liberties — except the free exercise
of religion, it seems — recently brought a
case against a Catholic hospital for refusing to permit doctors to perform an elective hysterectomy as part
of a sex - reassignment surgery.
Earlier this year, I accepted an invitation to respond in a public forum to Kyle Duncan, a Becket Fund lawyer involved in the religious
liberty cases currently addressing the provisions
of the ACA.
In the recent book, Civil
Liberties Under Attack, one
of the authors mentions the
case of a government official with an impeccable record who was placed under charges because unidentified informers asserted he «advocated the Communist Party line, such as favoring peace and civil
liberties,» and «his convictions concerning equal rights for all races and classes extend slightly beyond the normal feelings
of the average individual «1
The opinion [Scalia continues] in these
cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine —
of the Court's claimed power to create «
liberties» that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
Oberlin College went so far as to advocate «civil disobedience» in the face
of the fugitive slave laws (leading to the Oberlin - Wellington Rescue
Case — an important event in the history
of American civil
liberties).
While the
case was decided 5 — 4, the opinions that accompanied the court's decision also signal that seven
of the nine justices agree that businesses can make religious
liberty claims in court — an important ruling, said Joshua Hawley, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop
case is expected to offer more clarity to both sides
of the debate over religious
liberty vs. same - sex marriage.
In that
case, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and four other members
of the Court, knocked religious
liberty off its rightful pedestal as the «first freedom» and relegated it to the position
of a dependent afterthought.
Some
of the most high - profile religious
liberty fights in recent years, as Laycock mentioned, have been issues
of accommodation for LGBT individuals, such as
cases involving wedding photographers, caterers, and bakers.
Virginia Declaration
of Rights, 1776 XIII That a well regulated militia, composed
of the body
of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense
of a free state; that standing armies, in time
of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to
liberty; and that, in all
cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
Justice Harry Blackmun himself cited the Founders» intentions in his dissent in the 1990 Smith
case: «I do not believe the Founders thought their dearly bought freedom from religious persecution a «luxury,» but an essential element
of liberty.»
I am yet to see the self proclaimed problem here with Ozil playing wide.Any modern day midfielder can play wide unless you are incredibly one dimensional in which
case you shouldn't cost 42 M pounds.David Silva and many others out there are midfielders who begin wide.they are not wingers and Wenger isnt playing Ozil as a winger.He is given the
liberty of cutting infield.AFC midfield is not static.players move in and out
of midfield.
It makes a compelling
case for the freedom that comes from equality
of protection, provision and sustenance; and demonstrates clearly how gross inequality in society can damage
liberty just as much as tyranny can.
In any
case, there have been loads
of articles on civil
liberties and there are debates in the comments (I've never seen you there?)
In my
case, I turn out to agree with 1) Dennis Kucinich, 2) Mike Gravel and 3) Bill Richardson, who must have strong positions on environmental and civil
liberties issues, both
of which I listed high.
Mr Clarke, whose reputation as a defender
of civil
liberties has taken something
of a battering during the row, insisted
cases such as the Stephen Lawrence private prosecution and the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest would not have been covered by the new law.
Control orders are a good test
case for civil
liberties, because they affect a very small pool
of suspects who are considered hugely dangerous.
Article 14 (1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal
liberty and no person shall be deprived
of his personal
liberty except in the following
cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law; Article 19 (1) A person charged with a criminal offence shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court; Article 19 (11) No person shall be convicted
of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law; Article 19 (12) Clause (11)
of this article shall not prevent a Superior Court from punishing a person for contempt
of itself notwithstanding that the act or omission constitution the contempt is not defined in a written law and the penalty is not so prescribed; and Article 126 (2) The Superior Courts shall be superior courts
of record and shall have the power to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court
of record immediately before the coming into force
of this constitution.
We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area
of criminal justice on a
case by
case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil
liberties and preserving the integrity
of our criminal justice system.
Conservatives now remember the «Hobby Lobby
case» as one example
of how «big government» can endanger
liberty in unforeseen ways.
He told MPs he will ask the House
of Lords to consider other control order
cases in respect
of article five
of the human rights act, which guarantees the right to
liberty, pointing at a possible use
of house arrest.
The outcome
of this
case should spur Nigerians to always insist on the rule
of law, no matter the short term inconveniences, as it plays a crucial role in ensuring that political rights and civil
liberties are safe and that the equality and dignity
of all citizens are not at risk.»
At stake are careers, livelihoods, and in the
case of the Huhne fiasco, people's
liberty.
«This is a big step forward to getting what we are ultimately seeking: the right to bodily
liberty for chimpanzees and other cognitively complex animals,» says Natalie Prosin, the executive director
of the animal rights organization, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), that filed the
case.
Making his
case for Tommy in front
of a five - judge panel and a packed courthouse, he contended that chimpanzees are so cognitively and genetically similar to humans that they deserve a fundamental right to bodily
liberty.
Basically, there are two types
of online dating sites; the free ones and the ones that charge a subscription fee.You are at
liberty to choose what kind you want, though the
case of the paid websites stands stronger because
of a certain amount
of authenticity to it.
They do not make speeches about freedom or
liberty in the face
of injustice — in this
case Prohibition.
In spite
of the varying geographic, cultural, and socio - historic backgrounds
of these six
case studies — not to mention the diverging trajectories — their current political regimes bear many important similarities in regards to their interpretation
of both the democratic process and civil
liberties, namely that they exist and are tolerated to the extent that they work to the incumbent leadership's advantage.