DEFINITION OF LEGAL RIGHTS. LEGAL RIGHTS

Definition of legal rights. Kansas county attorneys. Lawyers funding group.

Definition Of Legal Rights


definition of legal rights
    legal rights
  • Rights of all individuals in a society as outlined in the laws of the State
  • Many philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
  • Rights that are laid down in law and can be defended and brought before courts of law.
    definition
  • A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary
  • (define) specify: determine the essential quality of
  • a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol
  • clarity of outline; "exercise had given his muscles superior definition"
  • An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something
  • The action or process of defining something
definition of legal rights - Dictionary of
Dictionary of Legal Terms
Dictionary of Legal Terms
Updated to include new terms such as "civil union" and to incorporate recent changes in laws and judicial interpretations, this handy dictionary cuts through the complexities of legal jargon and presents definitions and explanations that can be understood by non-lawyers. Approximately 2,500 terms are given with definitions and explanations for the benefit of consumers, business proprietors, legal beneficiaries, investors, property owners, litigants, and all others who have dealings with the law. Terms are arranged alphabetically from Abandonment and Abatable Nuisance, all the way through to Writ, Yellow Dog Contract, and Zoning.

87% (7)
Thoughts On Independence
Thoughts On Independence
“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” – Samuel Johnson, 1775 I know that being a bit cynical right now is not the best time, a time when India is finally unabashedly celebrating an Independence Day with a confidence and swagger never seen before in its relatively short history. But humour me a bit… National Interest – a word loved by all arms of the establishment – the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the armed forces and even the self-censored media. On the eve of India’s independence two proposals by the Government deeply trouble me – the Broadcast Bill and the proposal to have a database of every single call made by every person and to analyse it using ‘intelligent’ software. I am the first to appreciate the efforts of various men and women to work towards making our lives safer, but at what cost? Freedom of expression and right to privacy were never of great quality in ‘independent’ India, but now I am truly frightened at the prospects of an Orwellian nightmare. Did we go down the wrong route in 1947 with Nehru’s leftist view on the role of the centralised state? Why is the state so distrustful of its own citizens? Isn’t that a total antithesis of what democracy is supposed to mean? Why can’t I use the Indian flag how I want to? Why can’t I use it at all? Why can’t a secular state protect its citizens from religious fanatics who want to deny me my freedom of speech? Why is it that national interest is always tied in with narrow interest groups that are violent? Why is it that flag-waving and extreme jingoism, bordering on xenophobia and paranoia, are considered the classic examples of patriotism? Bal Thackeray and his like claim exclusive ownership space over defining who is patriotic or not, and I couldn’t be less bothered about patriotism. But shouldn’t we all be trying to be good citizens instead of patriotic ones? Pay your taxes, don’t litter, follow rules and regulations, protest against them peacefully if they are ridiculous, don’t bribe even the traffic cop and be a bit philanthropic if you can afford to. It seems a lot more appealing to me than someone who stands up in a cinema when the national anthem plays and ‘patriotically’ admonishes someone who prefers to sit down. There seems to be a lot of articles and deep analysis on India’s ‘hard’ infrastructure and rightly so, but what about our ‘soft’ infrastructure? The only great democratic institution we seem to have is the Election Commission, which seems to deliver free and fair (mostly) elections throughout India. Free and fair elections are just the start of a democracy. What about the rest? The less said about the legislature the better (we do get the people we deserve in a democracy) but what seems to be one of India’s biggest problems (though oddly one that seems to be a media darling, is it fear of the Contempt Law?) is the judiciary. Why is justice delivery of such a poor standard in India? 20-30 years to decide cases? And even then most of the judgements, even up to the High Court, are of poor quality? Are you kidding me? No wonder people resort to extra-judicial means, I don’t blame them at all. A democracy without an efficient, quick and just legal delivery system is just a sham. Why can’t the media start a debate on this instead of ‘selling’ a few criminal cases which no one remembers a few months later? Is it too scared? On the bright side (yes I can be cheerful too!) the parts of the Indian system which have been unshackled from central control and that do not depend too much on judicial support continue to take great strides forward. IT is obviously the poster boy but there are many spheres of industry and the economy that continue to shine. Major areas in need of reform include education, which is one of the few sectors still under ‘License Raj’ and carries great political patronage, and the healthcare system. “India lives in her villages”. Hard to argue with that in the present, but if India wants a future it needs to get out of its villages and into towns and cities with industry and services being employment generators, not agriculture. We do seem to romanticise our rural areas and are aghast when villagers come to urban areas for a better life and instead debate on how to make agriculture more profitable so that they stay there. That’s a losing battle, agriculture is the most inefficient form of human employment. We cannot have 650 million well-off villagers; more than 600 million of them need to move to cities if we are to ever reach developed status. India’s cities will define our future, not the big ones, the small ones, which will take in most of this migration. Do we have a plan for this massive migration? How many qualified urban planners do we have all over India? This scares me, I wonder if the ‘powers that be’ have ever thought about it. How do we ramp up industrialisation? How do we make affordable housing available to the poor in urban areas? Sadly our existing labour laws and the Rent C
Hot Summer
Hot Summer
I always told my friends that I love street photography. But look at my photostream on flickr, you might only found one or two shots on SP. I will start digging my photo library and share with you all for the rest of the week on this topic. Allow me to share with you legal restrictions on photography in United Kingdom: In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes,and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks. Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment. It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court. Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence. The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'. Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of under-18s, or what looks like pornography of under-18s. It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers. It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.

definition of legal rights
definition of legal rights
Broadening the Edges:Refugee Definition and International Protection Revisited (Refugees and Human Rights, Vol 1)
This study highlights the refugee issue, reviewing the concept of the refugee and the international protection of refugees from the viewpoint of the prospects and limitations of multilateralism in the post-Cold War era. This text offers a review of state practice within the United Nations and in regional contexts, as well as a review of the practice of the United Nations inter-agency system. The broadening concept of security, affecting the attitudes of states towards refugees, is the underlying theme of the book. The contemporary preoccupation with how best to provide international protection to all those in need of it, is reviewed from a number of relevant perspectives, including those of peacekeeping, sanctions, and co-ordination and competence within the United Nations.

Comments