What Is the Meaning of Legal Equality

The United States has been part of more than one movement to uphold the concept of legal equality. The civil rights movement, the Native American civil rights movement, and the feminist movement are examples of individual groups that fought for and ultimately won equality before the law in the United States. U.S. law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, religious preference, race, or a number of other defining characteristics. At the global level, the concept of legal equality was addressed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. According to the UDHR, all member states commit themselves to “universally respect and observe human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” By 1976, enough countries had ratified the UDHR to make it an official part of international law, meaning that all member states are required to follow the concepts and philosophies contained therein. Although many countries around the world are still grappling with issues of legal equality, most are struggling to change not only the country`s laws, but also long-standing cultural traditions that also prevent equality before the law. The law in many Middle Eastern countries, for example, which once prevented a woman from inheriting or owning property, has begun to change. The funeral oration of Pericles of 431 BC.

A.D., recorded in Thucydides` History of the Peloponnesian War, contains a passage praising the equality of free male citizens of Athenian democracy: The legalistic philosopher Guan Zhong (720-645 BC). A.D.) said that “the monarch and his subjects, no matter how law-abiding they are, will be the grand order.” [7] Legal equality is high. Any nation that claims to be democratic and free must be legally equal. But I do not believe that equality before the law is always equality in practice. By rightly identifying access to reproductive health care, including access to legal abortion, as fundamental to ensuring gender equality and preventing gender-based discrimination, . In all countries, there is some form of legal inequality – either the law itself is gender-discriminatory, or the effects of the law are discriminatory, or the laws are not enforced effectively, allowing for an environment of inequality and allowing violence and discrimination with impunity. In addition, constitutional equality at the national level is essential, as constitutions are the supreme law of the land – and sometimes constitutions or other laws allow exceptions to customary or religious laws that may discriminate against gender. Or, as in the case of the United States, there is no constitutional provision on gender equality, with negative consequences for all. The U.S. state of Nebraska adopted the motto “equality before the law” in 1867. It appears on both the state flag and the state seal.

[9] The motto was chosen to symbolize the political and civil rights of Nebraska blacks and women, particularly Nebraska`s opposition to slavery and the fact that black men could legally vote in the state from the beginning of the state. [10] Nebraska activists extend the motto to other groups, for example to promote LGBT rights in Nebraska. [11] In many countries, politicians, businessmen and other powerful and wealthy people escape unscathed. If a politician in a country is not even questioned about his corrupt nature and people literally applaud him and re-elect him, there is obviously no legal equality in such a country. On the basis of the nature of the alleged discrimination, the person must first prove that the management body actually discriminated against him. The person must prove that the action of the management body resulted in actual harm to the person. Once the court has proven this, it will usually look at the government action in one of three ways to determine whether the government agency`s action is permissible: these three methods are called rigorous audit, intermediate review and basic rational review. The court decides what test the person will be subjected to, relying on precedent to determine the level of control to be applied. It is important to note that the courts have combined elements of two of the three criteria into one point test. Equality before the law is a principle of some branches of feminism.

In the 19th century, gender equality before the law was a radical goal, but some later feminist views argue that formal legal equality is not enough to create real and social equality between women and men. An ideal of formal equality can punish women who do not adhere to a masculine norm, while an ideal of different treatment can reinforce gender stereotypes. [17] In 1988, before becoming a Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote: “Generalizations about what women or men are – confirming my life experience – cannot reliably guide me in making decisions about particular individuals. At least in the law, I did not find any natural superiority or impairment in either sex. In teaching or classifying documents from 1963 to 1980, and now reading pleadings and hearing arguments in court for over seventeen years, I have not discovered any reliable indicators or clearly masculine or certainly feminine thinking – not even calligraphy. [18] In a project on women`s rights by the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970s, Ginsburg in Frontiero v. Richardson called for laws that would provide health care to soldiers` wives, but not to the husbands of female soldiers. [19] There are currently more than 150 national constitutions mentioning gender equality. [20] The concept of legal equality is a central concept of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is a philosophy developed throughout Western Europe and America in the 19th century. It operated on the belief in limited government and individual liberty.

Classical liberalism attaches great importance to individual sovereignty, from which emerges the idea that all peoples have the right to equality before the law. Article 200 of Japan`s Penal Code, the penalty for parricide, was declared unconstitutional by Japan`s Supreme Court in 1973 for violating equality before the law. This was the result of the trial in the case of patricide Tochigi. [13] I think a good way to see if there is legal equality in a nation is to see if the rich and powerful are held legally accountable for their actions, just like the rest of the social classes. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.” [1] Therefore, everyone must be treated equally before the law, regardless of race, sex, colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability or other characteristics, without privilege, discrimination or prejudice.