Talk:Equality before the law

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

11-13-03 (revised 6-02-04)

Is There Such A Motion As Achievements In Religion!!? The General and The Chief Knew!? Perspective By Geo. E. Burks.

*With the Question of the achievement of science versus the sacredness of religion, the admiration of their highest place in the progressive evolving strives of the multi-cultural democratic nation and the separations in their objectives with the respects for all individual’s decisions as their way of strife for the betterment of humanity and to have everyone sense of trust placed on a foundation that holds all rights for respect in full consideration.

Revised from (*=) Neal Postmann’s Technopology

A movement or representation of an idea of the church separation from state for better democracy in form of a case in The Hall Of Justices against the definition of the virtuous justice enacted within that foundation by a prosecutor of this case can never win the opposition of that prosecutor’s opponent actions or behavior. The actions of The Chief states soundly that any movement to remove from sight the symbols from justice’s ideological birth, on and within The Halls of Justice physical foundations (or a court building as politically corrected known in these days) on display can never be seen or accepted on any grounds that having any signs or ideas of a beneficial movement!?! For as long as all involved in the past, present or the future of our justice procedures are borne by the academic’s or institutional’s sound fundamentals within the field of law. This argument can never be approach on any grounds within that exact field without restraining and/or conceding to the facts of, "what are the definitions of truth in the symbolic phrase of TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?!"

What this writer also saw impressive in The General’s comment was the idea of guilt and objective reasoning while showing an open respect in using the taxpayer’s time and money against The Chief’s (Moore’s) sentiments. All can easily recognized by this stand as insubvertly or direct in support to keep in constant view of those of the symbolic and the signatures of the definition of termed "ALL," from the phrase in the former question, for those whom enter "The Bama’s Halls Of Justice. " With this pillar of society’s original statures for civility undergoing a trial for its rightful measure of usefulness coming into mind also was The General comment with one easily finding a sign of resignation.

In this pursuit of a disavowing grounds that The Chief was found erected on, all who has a sentiment to contend against the grounds must first recognized The General comment with the affirmation that there is no place in considering resistance to The Chief’s stand. One also must noted thru the fundamental observations for all parties’ blessing that The Chief have nothing more erected to stand on, yet the foundations that were always there since the beginning of the practice of judging for parity and exact consolidation.

Within the comment lie many moving adjustments for all observations for the

Shouldn't this article merge with isonomia? A.Cython (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything in this article was OR ranging from dubious claims to obvious nonsense. Some of the content of isonomia could usefully be merged in, but without the obscure (Hayekian?) jargon. This ought to the be the main article, but it needs some substantive content, preferably free of attempts to claim this fundamental democratic concept for some particular political POV.JQ (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A history of equality before the law should include the Magna Carta. The charter was an "important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world," and the presumption of innocence which is a form equality in prosecution and criminal procedure. This is an important principal that should be appropriately included in this article.

— RW Marloe (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, some radical feminists have opposed equality before the law, because they think that it maintains the weak position of the weak."

WTF? This smells like a troll. Can anyone verify it? --95.144.114.170 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Equality is just equality, so a separate feminism naturally creates a space for those who prefer female superiority or additional privileges/protections/considerations.

Now, I'm not saying those feminists aren't trolls, given how undermining liberalism and the rule of law is over time inevitably going to undermine the status of the physically weak... but they generally take themselves quite seriously. — LlywelynII 04:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article IS worth retaining but as it stands its content is of dubious relevance and is woefully incomplete. I would like to know the thoughts of others, but I would suggest we might restructure and grow it to include:

• Some robust definitions

 -- The term equality under the law in the US, UK and other jurisdictions
 -- Systems of codification of equalities and their philosophical basis

• Some of the history

 -- Roman and Medieval 'value' placed on the lives of the various political, landowning and racial classes (an interesting item might be King Ine of Wessex and his two values for the blood price for an Anglo-Saxon and a Celtic Briton
 -- Access to legal remedy, who had it, who didn't 
 -- 1600 to 1950 - a review of the US constitution, abolition of slavery, native rights, women's votes (1920s), 
 -- Modern legislation intended to advance and protect legal equality
 -- Legal Aid and how the state has funded access to legal representation
 -- Human rights conventions and legislation
 -- Courts of appeal and their role in assuring legal equality (including EUCHR)

• Present day challenges including:

 -- Wealth, poverty and access to effective legal representation
 -- Political inequality, power and increasing inequality in the courts
 -- Prior assumptions on guilt and innocence and impact on supposed legal equality

Artowalos (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)artowalos[reply]

" is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due process)."

Often confused this does not suggest that all people are the same when it comes to applying the logic of law.

We may be equal before the law, however we are not all equal in the law; its a matter of logic and justice?

For example, the disabled, the elderly, the young, the aboriginals get special rights equally applied to all those within that group due to the logic of justice and with special justifiable reasons.

--174.5.37.143 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the line "The author Anatole France said in 1894, 'In its majestic equality...'" really necessary? I feel that the quote, in itself, is ironic and doesn't really serve the serious nature and neutral point of view to be taken in this article. I'm going to remove it if nobody objects. 72.219.45.14 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between 'feminism is about' and 'feminism claims to be about'. Former is an opinion masquerading as a fact. Latter is a fact. Could you please explain how exactly former is

Also don't revert my changes before discussing this it here because we ought not to wage

One more thing - this is about equality before the law and not about feminism. This article MUST be objective.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Wikipedia is not here to reflect your own personal views about feminism, and you've sadly misunderstood policy if you think "no edit-warring" means "the burden of consensus rests on anyone who reverts me." Revert your own disruption, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no one is that obtuse. Even newspaper say 'Scientists say that gravity is real' and not 'Science is gravity la la la la'. Please show me where exactly I have mentioned my 'personal opinions' or otherwise you can take YOUR personal opinions to someplace else where at least law is not being mentioned.

Seriosly, authoritative much? And btw, my account may not reflect it but I was on Wikipedia in 2003 and I know why these rules were constructed. There was absolutely no reason for your revert because "that's just like your opinion, man." is not a valid reason.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I suggest that you revert your own disruptive edit. Neither the article nor the talk page may be used as a soapbox for your personal views. Please take this opportunity to demonstrate good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I urge you to show any problem with my edit otherwise you are just harassing me.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated already several times, the problem is that Wikipedia is not here to host your personal opinions. If you personally believe that feminism is secretly about making women superior to men, write on your livejournal about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who has personal issues is you. If you do any more personal attack or revert the edit without any reason I will report this to arbitration. This is not your personal webpage and don't attack me personally again. I have been civil with you so far but you are testing my limits.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you have severe

WP:OWN problems. Get away for 2 days then come back.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I see no reason to switch to using

synthesis), and your last addition is unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It has literally been copy-pasted from the journal's introduction. I can rewrite it if there is a problem of copy-paste, but it is definitely not a use of 'weasel words', as source is the authority here, and everything else follows from it.

First paragraph changes - same issues. Second paragraph is a copy-paste job. A relevant bit of Feminist legal theory can be added if it is rewritten appropriately and is on point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the sources before commenting on it. There has been no copy-paste job, but a quote has indeed been added from a second source. Read the sources. May god give more knowledge to all of us.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source added into the article. It concludes with this:

"Their attack on "the masculine voice of rights, autonomy and abstraction" bodes ill for a liberal society... Their effort to abolish male privilege while preserving and expanding female privilege is likely to create the very backlash feminists fear. Moreover, most women do not want their brothers,husbands, or sons to live under a legal system that presumes them guilty; nor do they believe that sex is rape, freedom is a male plot, and an abused woman can be her own judge, jury, and executioner."

Unless anyone can come up with a formula that converts above statement into 'Feminism calls for equality', I suggest refrain from adding that statement without proper source.--Cubancigar11 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have left the article as it is in the hands of the cabal who are keen on reverting even the above statement - apparently rest of the world can't have knowledge if it doesn't suit latest White American fad.--talk 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to delete the last content section about the Japanese criminal code stuff because it hints at a neat angle for that section, but I couldn't figure out what to do with it in the shorter-term, so I renamed it to "legal matters." Thoughts on what that section should become? I'm thinking disputes or legal/court actions related to equality under the law in various countries. I came across it as a section created specifically to house that fact, and that seemed too bizarre and specific for a full section, but I think it would be at home in the article if several descriptions of that sort were present. Adamtrain (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should probably include the well-known Anatole France quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]