Civil rights have evolved to focus on individual rights

The definition of civil rights has evolved over time. How does one decide what is a current civil rights issue? What are the guidelines?

“Civil rights” are defined in many different ways. Many people associate civil rights as dealing strictly with minority groups. This is easily understood. In the past civil rightsissues were focused on women’s rights, African-American rights, and homosexual rights for a start. The question is what was being protested?

The African-American civil rights movement (1950′s – 1960′s) is remembered by many due to the extreme racial discrimination and the suffrage which was ongoing in the southern states. The “Reconstruction” era directly after the Civil War had been a failure, with many living in the same conditions they had while they were slaves. Fines and voter intimidation was commonplace and had effectively shut down any chance of voting the newly freed African-Americans had hoped would become regular.

Although there are still occasional outbursts of prejudice, for the most part America truly has become a melting pot. Laws have ensured employers offer equal opportunity and unions ensure laborers are protected. “Hate crimes” are punished harshly enough that their occurrence has become rare indeed (at least in this corner of the world). Racism and prejudice surely still exist, yet not as overtly as we have seen in the recent past.

So what is a current civil right issue?

A more recent definition of civil rights is written as “rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted action by government and private organizations and individuals and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.” By definition, this includes protection for discrimination on a whole as well as individual right issues (“the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement”). Please note: freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

DictionaryReference.com defines civil rights in numerous ways; the first definition is more applicable to the topic at hand and shall be used as reference: “rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.”

Based on the research available, civil rights not only applies to the rights of a group (gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, age, etc) but also to the rights of the individual. When a new law is introduced which will infringe on individual rights, which happens often, that is a civil rights concern. When the government tries to regulate the way the individual lives in their home or acts in their car, once again, that is a civil rights concern.

One may only hope that the issues being discussed inform and enlighten those who may have been blissfully unaware.

A Libertarian turned Republican? Just for the primary I guess

Today at noon was the deadline for major-party candidates to file with the Department of Elections. A surprising turn of events was Brent Wangen, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, joining others as a fusion candidate. Brent Wangen will now participate in the Republican primaries, along with Rose Izzo,Glen Urquhart, and Michelle Rollins. The Republican primary is set for September 14th, 2010. Regardless of a win or loss in the primary, Brent will remain of the ballot in November as the Libertarian candidate.

Aren’t there enough choices in the Republican primary? Won’t voters already be confused? Not according to Brent. Brent claims that when looking at Michele Rollins and Glen Urquhart, he sees “more of the same”. In this anti-establishment time, Brent clings to his motto “The Constitution is the Solution”. One wonders if more needs to be said.

Libertarians this year seem to be playing by a different set of rules as Will McVay, a Libertarian running for the 32nd district, has also filed as a fusion candidate. Will has filed for both the Democrat and Republican primaries. Will has drawn numerous supporters from both major parties and chose to increase his name recognition as well as the causes he supports; he is a strong supporter of state sovereignty.

In Brent’s case, despite the seemingly last minute decision, the reasons to be a fusion candidate have piled up for him. Brent comments that “As a Constitutional Libertarian, I believe the GOP voters will find the conservative principles they are looking for in a candidate that is beholden only to the Constitution regardless of their party.” Based on his paying the $3,480 filing fee today, Brent believes he is that candidate. When speaking, Brent teaches listeners not only about the Constitution and the18 Enumerated Powers, but also about the boundaries which our current Congress have ignored blatantly.

Brent will make his official announcement on Friday at the Delaware Conservative Coalition’s Great Conservative Cookout.

You may learn more about Brent Wangen here!

Return to the Delaware 2010 Elections Information Main Page

Can we stop with the racial slurs already?

I have been absent for awhile and for that I apologize.  To those of you who are offended by this topic, I also apologize, but I strongly feel this needs to be said.

The term “ cracker” has long been used as a racial slur against Caucasians in America. This term has had a re-emergence in the last week due to “King Samir Shabazz” (most recognized member of the New Black Panther Party) and his exploits at the polls in November 2008. We all recognize Samir’s right to free speech, and I will refrain from getting into the voter intimidation issue. What I want to discuss is the now relatively common use of the term “cracker” which is being used by members of the Tea Party movement.

I have seen it emerging all over Facebook and my other social networking websites. People who previously had pictures of their families, or the American flag, even the Gadsden flag, now have pictures of a cracker. One friend who I had deemed reasonable has a picture of a cracker shaped like the United States of America.

I understand the outrage people are feeling in regards to Samir and his statements (I will not call him King), especially when one takes into consideration he stood outside a voting area with a club. Samir states in hisBlack Planet webpage “I hate crackas deeply and I will never compromise with that, SOOOOO CRACKAS STAY OFF MY PAGE.NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING YALL HAVE TO SAY“. He states much worse than this in numerous writings, songs, and videos available online.

My summation, just because someone else calls you an offensive name doesn’t mean you have to prove you are “above” the slur by embracing it. I saw a doctored photo of the “White Power Fist“, inside the fist is a cracker and underneath is the phrase “Cracker Power”.

This is being taken too far in my opinion. One man and his racial slurs are no reason to start alienating any minority who embraces the cause of the Tea Party. When CNN calls the Tea Party racist now, can we blame them?