By Daniel Archibald | CFA
1 December 1955, Montgomery, Alabama: After finishing her days work as a seamstress, Rosa Parks headed home via the local bus service. When the bus hit the downtown area of the city, the bus driver ordered Parks and others of colour to move further back down the bus to make room for white office workers. Parks moved over, but not back, and thus heralded a pivotal point in the U.S. civil rights movement. This was also the call to arms for a young preacher from a church a couple of blocks away; a Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
Even though the U.S. Supreme Court had a year earlier decreed that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, it took many cities in the southern states years to outlaw discriminatory practices based on race across public and business life. And to try and help and speed up the process, many groups participated in rallies, protests and at times, civil disobedience. One of these actions, which was a direct result of Rosa Parks individual protest and subsequent arrest, was the boycotting of Montgomery buses by those supporting the rights of citizens of colour. Interestingly, but probably not surprising, civil rights actions that directly affected the local economy or business (i.e. boycotts) seemed to be the most effective in eliciting change. And in today's world, civil rights stretching to all minority groups and individuals are upheld and cherished in most of the world's developed countries.
Rights (being principles or rules about what is allowed of, or owed to, individuals) can be categorised in a number of ways. Some are legal rights, such as the right of due process, whereas some are natural rights, such as the right to self-determination. One of the most important document in history, the Magna Carta (1215), established a charter of rights (mainly for the English nobles) putting limits on the power of the crown; and a similarly important document, the Declaration of Independence (1776) listed the main natural rights of all men (and women?) to be the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness.
Shortly after winning their independence and forming a Government, the new leaders of the U.S.A. also added 10 amendments to the constitution known as the Bill of Rights, which limited the powers of congress in respect to a number of areas such as the freedom of religion, speech, gun ownership, and freedom from illegal searches or property seizures. In the aftermath of the Second World War, and in a bid to prevent further atrocities on the European continent, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was established. The convention is executed by a supranational court to protect the rights of Europeans including the outlawing of torture, slavery, and discrimination, as well as the right to life, liberty, security and a fair trial. The convention also includes the right to respect for private and family life and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Most of these rights are common foundations for societies throughout the world. However, some of these rights do have controversial standings in jurisdictions with growing debate over whether they are fundamental or worthy human rights. Many people in and out of the U.S. would argue that the country's second amendment (the right to bear arms) has been grossly misinterpreted/misapplied. Also, the right to life is used by most anti-abortion/anti-euthanasia advocates as their primary argument. Furthermore, discrimination based on, and freedom of, religion seems to also be up for debate in many circles around the world. Freedom of speech, is also a sensitive topic, with countries like Australia putting limits on the extent to which such a right is accepted. And it is taking time for some countries to recognise the rights of minorities and even not-so-minority groups (i.e. women's rights).
I think we humans can at least agree that society and Governments should work to protect our fundamental natural rights. These are, as the U.S. founding fathers put it: "certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Then again, the original text read, life, liberty and 'property' so maybe these rights aren't as "unalienable" as the word might suggest.