Text prepared by the executive director Edited and published by The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty速 This document is not-copyrighted. However absolutely no part of this document is to be edited or modified in any way by persons other then the executive of the Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty速 The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty速 PO Bag 59 Lady Young Road Morvant, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com firstname.lastname@example.org (868)625-0446 4
Contents 1. Executive Summary
2. Mission Statement
3. Core Values
4. Statement of Principles
6. CFRT Training Center
7. Global Reports Unit
8. Risk Assessment Facility
9. TIRL Law Department
10. Bill of Rights Advisory
11. TIRL Officers
Executive Summary The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty (TIRL) is a registered non-profit, human rights education services provider. It was launched in the year 2000 in Trinidad and Tobago, and in 2008 in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. As TIRL was founded in Trinidad and Tobago it is the place of our institution’s headquarters. Chapters will be established in other parts of the globe in keeping with our mission’s objectives to advance the case for the adoption of Republicanism pursuant to the protection of human rights in general, the first right in particular in countries across the globe. Since religious liberty is the first in rank of all fundamental human rights, a fact proven by empirical evidence; it finds special emphasis in the structure of our institute’s services, which is indicated by the name of our organization. The Problem Many international religious liberty reports and surveys today identify the extent of violations of religious liberty, and religious persecution that takes place in countries across the globe, and the troubling fact—that it is currently increasing according to current international religious freedom reports. The World Values Survey (www.worldvaluessurvey.org) revealed that the level of religious belief is on the rise, and with it comes an increase in religious diversity as well indicating the need for greater religious tolerance amidst the religious communities internationally. Islam and Evangelicalism are two of the fastest growing religions in the world at the moment. And apart from governments’ violations of human rights in general, there are religions with anti-rights religious beliefs that lend support to and influence violations at different levels of society; particularly government. In addition to the growing violations of the first right there is also growth in criminal activities internationally, such as school violence, domestic violence, incest, gang warfare, terrorism, suicide bombings, civil war, genocide, political prisoners, free press denials and violations, and the list goes on and on. This unfortunate state of affairs reflect a downward trend of rapid deterioration in basic moral values and respect for persons’ rights which if not addressed will continue to the point of entire social breakdown within societies. Though many a human rights groups and organizations work internationally yet such formidable realities continue to take place. What this state of affairs reflect in the affirmative is a growing insensitivity to people’s rights due to lack of the right national initiatives. Two major factors that affect such outcomes are: (1) countries not adopting Republican forms of governmental systems to affect rights-friendly outcomes in their nations, and (2) religions with anti-rights beliefs and postures that undermine and influence society in a way that beget such trends. These circumstances issue a call for real Rights-Smart country solutions if core differences are to made with real results. The Solution TIRL is poised to offer an inspired level of solutions and applications to countries due to the vision of rights and freedoms we subscribe to, of course notwithstanding that decision makers must choose to adopt solutions if they are to work for a country. Our services and applications are so configured to target the core human rights issues that affect societies across the globe; be they third world, developing or developed countries. Advancing the case for the adoption of full Republicanism is necessary for national legal pro7
tections of individual rights and freedoms, religious liberty in particular in order to create a free internal social environment and social stability for the development of human rights initiatives, institutions and standards, and to engender increased sensitivity and values for these said rights throughout society. Once a government buys into Republicanism the appropriate social climate will be created for unhindered maximum flourishing of individual choice. And as individuals pursue their ends in different areas in light of the sustenance and enjoyment of their rights, the effects will gradually spawn all areas such as economic development, scientific development, medical development, standards development, religious development, research development, social development, human rights development, environmental development, etc., but more so with regards to the general civility of the people as a result of sensitivity to each otherâ€™s rights. Tolerance of differencesâ€”social and religious will follow minimizing racial tensions, discrimination and religious persecutions inter alia. Going the way of Republicanism positions a country for maximum internal development individually, institutionally and nationally. TIRL will partner with other selected human rights organizations in the interest of furthering the cause for human rights protection.
Mission Statement To provide human rights services that are geared to promote respect for, and to cause the increase of legal protections for individual rights and freedoms, religious liberty in particular across the regions of the globe; to undertake initiatives to accentuate the problem-solving potential of the field of human rights to affirm its validity as the more appropriate and effective approach to human enterprises and solutions; to advance the case for the widespread adoption of Republicanism in order to get implemented the legal protections needed for individual rights and freedomsâ€”for more rights-friendly national governance: all towards the sole goal of enhancing social environments conducive to higher levels of mutual respect of personsâ€™ rights and freedoms pursuant to greater levels of civility and development; individually, institutionally and nationally.
Institute Core Values In recognition of the need to adopt a set of standards to be committed to in the delivery of ser vices and solutions to our clients to affirm the level of professionalism and integrity that the TIRL team operates thereby, we have instituted the under-mentioned core values. TIRL human rights officers are hereby committed: Core Values • Foremost to the respect of the Divine Rights of God as the source of Human Rights, • To the doctrine of Rights as the exclusive platform for deriving Rights-Sensitive solutions, • To consistent respect and defense of the First Right, i.e. Religious Liberty, • To excellence and professionalism within Company2Client relations at all times, • To advancing the cause for the development of free societies, and • To the validation of Rights-friendly human relations as the way forward.
Statement of Principles •
We believe that all human beings are created by our Maker with certain fundamental, equal rights; which are as follows: (1) The right to serve God (Creator)/Religious Liberty, (2) The right to Life, and (3) The right to Private Property.
We believe that the aforementioned fundamental rights are expressed in a range of expanded rights that are simply contextual identifications or references to our said fundamental rights to define their exercise in the variety of circumstances of human society.
We believe that there are two categories of Fundamental Rights, i.e. the Religious Right (the first right) which is absolute and the Non-Religious Rights (the second and third rights) which are relative. The first right is the chief or supreme right (often referred to in international circles as the cornerstone of all human rights). It (the first right) forms the context as well as define the purpose and perspective of the second and third rights, not the other way around. It is therefore absolute because there are no circumstances that could ever demand its forfeiture, whilst there are circumstances under which the second and third rights can be justifiably forfeited through due process of law. The first right in reality cannot be forfeited since it is a matter of mind and conscience, however it is usually attacked by destroying in some form - the relative rights, which are the rights to life and private property.
We believe that by virtue of the aforementioned rights each individual has the right to self determination which makes that no other person or group or government can have the right to determine another person’s choice/s or future, whether such course of action be deemed right or wrong or is actually right or wrong.
We believe that embedded in the reality of being created with basic rights reflect the fact that our Creator also has certain rights that are binding on the human family to respect in all actions and institutions. And that these rights not being human rights but Creator rights inherently possess a greater demand for respect and have greater consequences to their violations than that of human rights. These Divine rights are listed below in their natural logical structure. Each of the following Divine rights contains expanded clauses to give further explanation to the right itself. God’s Divine Rights: ►The Right to be Worshipped alone by all; 1. The Right to be idealized or exalted as God alone, 2. The Right to centrally occupy everyone’s mind continually, 3. The Right to be religiously obeyed at all times, ►The Right to be the only source of Revelation to all; 1. The Right to be the lone source of self-revelation, 2. The Right to be the source of faith for all,12 11
3. The Right to be the source of science for all, 4. The Right to give commandments/law, and ►The Right to be the only Judge of all; 1. The Right to be the supreme governor of the universe, 2. The Right to be the source of forgiveness for all, 3. The Right to be the executive judge of the thoughts, beliefs, opinions, consciences and choices of all, and 4. The Right to execute penalty upon all. •
We believe that in addition to being created with basic rights God designed us with specific personal freedoms for the expressed purpose of facilitating the unhindered exercise, fulfillment and enjoyment of our said basic rights. These individual personal freedoms are as follows: Personal Freedoms: 1. Freedom of Thought 2. Freedom of Conscience 3. Freedom of Belief 4. Freedom of Opinion 5. Freedom of Choice 6. Freedom of Speech 7. Freedom of Expression, and 8. Freedom of Movement
We believe that given the fact that human beings are born in a state of moral imperfection, our freedoms give room to being wrong but its purpose is to facilitate our advancement to the right and truthful, in order to sustain the preservation and enjoyment of our rights. If the purpose of freedom was to allow us to do anything we so desire including wrongdoing or evil, then we are free to destroy the rights and freedoms of others, or in other words, we are free to be unfree, and have a right to take away others’ rights or have ours taken away by others.
We believe that the purpose of government is essentially to protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, and that the doctrine of rights is the basis of government's authority, structure and functions; which system have been termed Republicanism. And that once a government operates outside of the limits set by the rights of the people that government then becomes anti-rights or Communistic.
We believe that government’s relationship to the First Right, (sometimes referred to as Religious Right), is to acknowledge and declare that it is a matter of mind and conscience hence not pursue the regulation and determination of religious practice through the law. In other words government is to insure the following, that is: (a) No legislation of any religion/s and religious dogma/s, (b) No legislation against any religion/s and religious dogma/s and (c) No legislation against the free and full practice of religion. 12
We believe that the principle of democracy is grossly misused by governments and internationalists of today. That democracy is strictly a political electionary method of Republican governmental systems, limited solely to putting candidates into government office. Government functions are to be determined and inspired by the basic rights of the people not interest groups or majority rule.
We believe that the Ten Commandments is the de facto ideological source of both the natural Divine rights of God as well as the basic rights of man inter alia.
We believe that the limits of a person’s rights and freedoms are the rights and freedoms of another, and that no one can have a right to violate, restrict, deny or infringe upon another person’s rights, or are free to violate, restrict, deny or infringe upon another person’s freedoms.
We believe that due to the human fallible and imperfect condition, religious beliefs and practices can and are many a time wrong or anti the rights of others, especially since history is replete with examples of many an evil perpetuated in the name of God and religion. And that religious criticism is not only a natural and necessary check of religious intolerance, but is critical to the free society, and the process of human advancement beyond the point of the intolerances and persecutions that continue to occur in our world today.
We believe that there are no circumstances in our sinful and imperfect world that justifies the existence of blasphemy laws in any society under any conditions, and that such a practice is not only primitive but is also one of the political errors to overcome in today’s world.
We believe that the exclusive purpose of law (local and international) is to protect the rights and freedoms of human beings not ideas, views or concepts, whether they be religious, scientific or political—that when they are wrong most often causes human behavior to deviate into all manner of anti-rights and criminal activities. That all ideas and concepts that have become religious doctrines and philosophies are particularly naturally subjected to criticism in the interest of protecting human rights, since historically religious beliefs have caused the greatest amount of human rights violations.
We believe that phrases such as defamation of religion has no place in law since defamation is a human-relations concept, not an idea-relations one. In other words it is not possible to have a defamation of religion or religious dogma because concepts are not persons that need protection from harm; hence the very term is illegitimate and deceptive in the extreme. The only appropriate relations humans can have towards views and beliefs are rational.
We believe that religious tolerance is the key to peaceful co-existence between religious communities with conflicting religious differences, and the cure to religious persecution, and that it is human rights that define the structure and function of tolerance.
Our Services •
Religious Liberty Advocacy and litigation
Consulting At Human Rights
Human Rights Technical Training
First Rights Attorney Training
First Rights Constitutional services
RightSmart Applications Development
The Certified First Rights Technician Program It is the doctrine of human rights, the first right in particular that gives shape and structure to the layout of the doctrine of Republicanism that when implemented creates a free society. The term Republic is used in a generic sense today much like the term nation, however the technical meaning of the term strictly speaking is used to identify the country that has implemented the Republican form of government, which concept is synonymous with the term free society. Effective legal protection of the first right can only occur within the setting of an authentic Republic, as well as the maximum flourishing of its free and full exercise. The CFRT training program then serves to develop experts in the field of Republicanism to work at different levels within the relevant institutions of society to sensitize persons and guide pertinent processes towards the development of or the sustenance of the free society or Republic. The CFRT understands that the developmental potential of a country depends entirely on the regard for and treatment of human rights within that country. The nation of America is an ideal case in point given the circumstances of their early nationhood. The pro-development climate of a country is determined by the type of governmental system that is installed. If the type of government is Republican then human rights would be held as inalienable and the first right a matter of mind and conscience not subject to government’s legal determination and regulation. The Bill of Rights would ensure the protection of the natural rights and freedoms of the people from both government encroachment and civilian infractions - creating a free society; without limits to research and development initiatives of any kind pursuant to the sustenance and enjoyment of person’s rights. The maintenance of the rights to Life and Private Property will be explored to its uttermost resulting in the maximum flourishing of individual choice. Development of all types of technologies and sciences and in every sector of society will follow to enhance the quality of human rights preservation within the nation. As the country progresses, fruits will begin to bear spawning all major areas i.e., science and technology, medical development, agricultural development, religious development, social development, human rights development, standards development, educational development, and economic development, to name a few. Particularly the civility of people will grow as a result of sensitivity to each other’s rights and freedoms. Tolerance of individual and religious differences will follow minimizing racial tensions and religious persecutions inter alia once the sensitization process continues. Countries with non-Republican forms of government cannot provide a free climate because of the excessive controls such governments exercise over its citizens. Initiatives are limited due to restrictions placed on freedoms by tyrannical leaders who attribute the rights of God to themselves claiming the power to grant and withdraw the people’s rights. It must be understood that the inalienability of human rights is the critical component of the doctrine of Republicanism that shapes how government functionaries regard and treat citizens’ rights. If human rights were not inalienable then it is left that it is either nature, the will of the people, legislation or governments that grants or withdraws such rights; which is the commonly held view in nonRepublican systems such as Cuba, China, etc. History have proven time and time again that when government is the authority that manages human rights, society suffers and individual and institutional development is quenched and prevented because certain men have taken unto themselves the role of being God to the people. From the pharaohs of Egypt to the English 15
kings that claimed certain divine rights, individual rights have been violated and freedoms denied. Thus a free society depends solely on whether the government of the country is Republican. Whilst within free societies all manner of errors, falsehoods and evils exist in every sector yet the very freedoms of the society open the way for cures to be developed. In such cases freedom of expression gives rise to criticisms to put checks on falsehoods at the concept stage of its existence to prevent it from becoming established practice. If however the life of a falsehood does not end at this point freedom then allows it to be practiced in order to eventually manifest its flaws in defective results. The criticism factor is then most pivotal to the advancement of free societies since without it research and analytical thinking will not correct flaws that hinder progress. Religious beliefs are foremost in influencing political ideology and emotive behaviors in religious issues. Religious communities must be sensitized to exercise religious tolerance in the face of divergent expressions from the adherents of opposing faiths or in the context of proselytization. These are just some of the major factors a CFRT is trained in to remedy with effective human rights applications. Upon completion of the Certified First Rights Technician course a technician will be able to do the following: • Identify all forms of violations of, or the potential for violations of the First Right, i.e. Freedom of thought, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Opinion, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Belief and Observance, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Movement. Thus to communicate in public one’s religious beliefs to others in efforts to proselytize, Freedom to or not worship in the Religion/s of one’s own choosing, Freedom to associate and assemble in community with like believers; without interference or burdens of any sort except in cases where one’s religious practices infringes or interferes with the rights and freedoms of others. •
Identify legal infractions or the potential for legal infractions in anti religious freedom legislation and the social impact of such legislation.
Identify the primary areas of concern for First Rights legislation models and the focus for technical training.
Identify the kinds of potential for development within different sectors of society if RightSmart measures and applications are implemented.
Act in the capacity of an advocate to resolve First freedom violation issues.
Act in the capacity of a consultant to instruct and guide First Freedom resolution processes.
The CFRT course completion kit consists of the following items: CFRT Course materials CFRT Certificate CFRT Program file CFRT ID Card CFRT Pin
• • • • •
CFRT online membership at http://www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com
The Maintenance of the CFRT Certification Each technician is expected to take the necessary steps in order to maintain his/her certification through at least one workshop per year to refresh and update his/her understanding. Members receive email notifications of relevant webinars, reviews, and updates of important advancements in the field apart from the variety of resources available at our website. The CFRT training is free of charge, however there is a standard cost of $30.USD for the course kit for those that have completed the online course, pass the test and wish to receive the CFRT course kit which consist of the aforementioned items. There is a slightly lower fee for the training materials to those that have done the course at our training facility.
TIRL Global Reports Unit The function of the Global Reports Unit (GRU) is to: • Monitor all relevant annual international religious freedom country reports such as the US Department’s International Religious Freedom Country Reports, the Hudson Institute’s Religious Freedom World Map, Adventist’s Global Religious Freedom Report, etc. to determine the types of applications that are needed to be developed, including different types of global reports and other methodologies to assist in promoting internationally the fundamental right of Religious Liberty, •
Develop rich graphic-intensive mediums for our Unit’s range of applications.
TIRL GRU Reports and Papers • The International Republicanism Annual Country Report; which identify countries that are authentic Republics, partial Republics and non-Republics. •
The International CommuLigious (a governmental system that is Communistic but legally establishes a state religion) Annual Country Report; which identify countries with CommuLigious governments and the anti-rights national policies and developments that follow such state adoptions.
A paper on the history of CommuLigious establishments for the last two thousand years.
A paper on Jeffersonian Republicanism as the ideal model of government.
Religious Beliefs Risk Assessments Facility At the Risk Assessment Facility we assess religious beliefs systems using a specific scientific methodology to determine whether Religious freedom is a friend or foe within the system under assessment. In the case of foe—the potential risk of violation in whatever form the right of religious liberty may face due to the nature and internal structure of beliefs within systems. There are three basic positions that different religious organizations may hold that engender circumstances of risk for the first right. The following positions are not simply held knowing the likely effects that could follow their subscription. In some cases due to dangerous ideas of God a person’s doctrine of religious liberty is negatively shaped and he/she is unaware of what is occurring psychologically as a result of his/her beliefs structure and the outcome that could follow if the right circumstances existed. In other cases leaders deliberately choose to adopt restrictive models of religious liberty because it is suitable to and in keeping with the belief system. And in other cases friendly models of religious liberty are adopted because their preferred model cannot be exercised in the country in question because the laws would not allow it. Risks to religious liberty can be manifested in two ways: (1) The persons that adhere to the risk doctrines support and push for anti religious freedom legislation to be passed by governments to allow their religions to be practiced without hindrance from the law and criticism from others that exposes the flaws of their doctrines, and (2) Persons that adhere to risk doctrines is more likely to directly violate the religious freedoms, and other rights of others in various ways. The following are the three doctrinal positions that when subscribed to pose a risk to the religious liberty of others. When Religious groups or communities subscribe to: • Non-inalienable models of fundamental rights. Such doctrines causes a person to hold a negative regard for the rights of others and so carry the inherent potential for begetting negative treatments of these said rights of others, particularly religious freedom by the adherents of such doctrines, •
Blatant anti-rights concepts of religious freedom. Such a concept would undermine the real value of the first right in the mind of the adherent due to its significance within their belief system. This in turn poses a dangerous level of potential risk to the first right, which is likely to cause violations of the said right under certain circumstances,
The appropriate doctrine of religious freedom but for political reasons only. That is to say that the social circumstances of the country under which the organization exist prevents it from practicing its real positions on religious liberty, hence it becomes necessary to adopt a friendly position on religious liberty to suit the circumstances in order appear to be in favor freedom. In this case if the circumstances change religious liberty faces the risk of being openly violated. In such cases genuine religious freedom cannot fit or logically integrate into their system of beliefs. 19
There is a specific scientific way to look at and judge Religious belief systems due to the fact that each naturally possess a certain structure to it, and so must be judged accordingly. Therefore judging beliefs systems must follow a particular structural methodology if the system is to be fairly judged. Each religious organization has a system of beliefs, officially stated or not, and that system as with every system, has a certain inherent internal structure to it with beliefs occupying different positions of rank based on the significance of each belief within the system. Adherents to different beliefs do not always work out their belief systems analytically and methodically, and so may not clearly articulate certain doctrines that are logically implied and connected to the system. There are four categories of positions that doctrines naturally occupy within systems. The structural positions of doctrines within systems are as follows: (1) Hierarchical Doctrines—These are doctrines that has ascendancy and shaping power over other doctrines within the system of beliefs. For instance your concept of God will determine the shape of other doctrines you hold since it is a doctrine that naturally occupy a Hierarchical position with systems. If you believe that God is a man then your doctrine of morality will be humanistic and limited, your doctrine of rights would originate in man and so men could give and withdraw rights and freedoms at will. If I believe that men have more rights than women as a doctrine then that doctrine will justify wife-beating since wives are lesser in rights and value than men, which we see in the Koran. And the list goes on. (2) Prioritized Pragmatic Doctrines—These are core or central doctrines in belief systems, they determine how the system actually works and is perceived to work. For instance within Christianity the doctrine of God is in a Hierarchical position but the doctrine of Christ is in the Prioritized Pragmatic position since it determine how the entire system of salvation works; hence if the death of Christ is misconstrued everything else goes wrong. (3) Subjunctive Doctrines—These are doctrines that has a subservient role in relation to the Prioritized Pragmatic Doctrines in the system. This is necessary since all doctrines cannot occupy the same status within systems because different doctrines has different functions with a system. (4) Vestige Doctrines—These are doctrines that does not have an integral role in the system of belief for either of two reasons: (a) Due to shifts that took place in the system over time it has lost its defining role in the system, or (b) It is held for deceitful reasons or in other words to make the religion look good in the public’s eye. Thus Vestige Doctrines do not logically integrate into one’s system of beliefs, if they do not have circumstantial value to the movement they would eventually fade away and be given up entirely at some point in time. Risk Assessment Methods: • Method (1) - Religious Freedom face the risk of violation when a Religious organization has an appropriate Religious Liberty doctrine as part of its system of beliefs, but that the doctrine fall within the Vestige Doctrines category of the system due to its relationship to the Prioritized Pragmatic doctrine. •
Method (2) - Religious Freedom face the risk of violation when a Religious organization 20
has an anti-Rights doctrine of Religious Liberty as part of its system of beliefs, and that the doctrine fall within the Subjunctive Doctrines category of the system due to its relationship to the Prioritized Pragmatic Doctrines. â€˘
Method (3) - Religious Freedom face the risk of violation when a Religious organization subscribe to a non-inalienable concept of human rights which will determine a negative regard for, and treatment of rights and freedoms as a whole.
The doctrine of Religious Freedom is indeed in the Prioritized Pragmatic position within the doctrine of Republicanism whilst the doctrine of inalienable rights holds the Hierarchical position. Inalienable rights determine the foundation of Republicanism whilst Religious Liberty shape how the entire system actually works. Thus the doctrines of Inalienable Rights and Religious Liberty must naturally integrate into our system of religious beliefs if the right regard for and treatment is to be meted out to them.
TIRL Law Department
The inextricable inherent link that exists between law and human rights have been the grounds for the establishment of this department. It serves as a source of support for the Rule of Law and the legal fraternity with a developing knowledge base for legal research. Unfortunately more and more the legal profession is becoming a matter of technical procedure to serve the powerful rather than real human rights legal thought underpinning the operation of the profession. A lawyer is more like a procedural technician than a legal mind with an human rights sense of justice. Thus the major functions of our law department is to build a strong base of First Rights Attorneys and legal minds in the legal fraternity, internationally to support advocacy for free societies, and to further developments of the rule of law or more definitively Republican Constitutionalism. Our website is a virtual resource for technical online legal support, technical papers on relevant issues, doctrinal resources on matters of law, inter alia. The services of the department are as follows. Services • First Rights Attorney training •
Virtual Training Facility (online)
Law Doctrine Resource (online)
Bill of Rights Advisory Service (online)
Directory of Attorneys (online)
Virtual Facility: http://www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com/
The Bill of Rights Advisory Though in 1215 the Magna Carta came on the scene to protect the English people from the Crownâ€™s abuse of power and in 1689 the English Bill of Rights contributed to the curtailment of the alleged rights of the monarchy the concept of a Bill of Rights was only really developed as a fundamental part of a constitution after the American Revolution with the establishment of the Jeffersonian model of Republican constitutionalism. Today there is no doubt the value of a Bill of Rights to the rule of law in a free society. The balance needed to ensure the rights and freedoms of the people are not infringed upon whilst government is afforded sufficient power to effectively rule is the target of a Bill of Rights. However the concept is somewhat still young in terms of its doctrinal refinement with regard to certain structural and provisional developments within the model; for which this Advisory will provide basic guidelines and developments to bring enhancement to the pro-rights governance process as well as beget an appropriate human rights jurisprudence. Given that this Advisory derives its guidelines from the doctrinal platform of the Rights of Man it is fitting to herein outline the basic human rights and freedoms before moving on to the guidelines. Individualâ€™s three fundamental Rights as follows: 1. The Right of Religious Liberty (Religious Right) 2. The Right to Life, and 3. The Right to Private Property In addition to being created with certain rights, personal freedoms were designedly given to human beings to facilitate the exercise, preservation and enjoyment of our basic rights. These personal freedoms are as follows: 1. Freedom of Thought 2. Freedom of Conscience 3. Freedom of Belief 4. Freedom of Opinion 5. Freedom of Choice 6. Freedom of Speech 7. Freedom of Expression, and 8. Freedom of Movement The Basic Provisional Components that must form part of a Bill of Rights Introduction Much has been said about the rule of law by legal scholars and researchers that is not useful for this Advisory. My deliberations will cover only what is needful to clarify the concept and will take the human rights perspective since the concern of the Advisory is the Bill of Rights. When the rule of law is referred to these days what is not usually meant is the instrumentalist conception of rule by law practiced in Chinese history but more so the governmental system found in 23
American constitutionalism and other like systems. Studies have yielded three particular components the doctrine of the rule of law is composed of. The core of the rule of law is an autonomous legal order that has three key factors to it: (1) to be a regulator of government’s power to prevent arbitrariness and abuse, (2) to render all classes of citizens equal under law, and (3) to provide a system of procedural and formal justice. Nonetheless the rule of law has to be determined within the setting of human rights. And whilst all the ramifications of the concept cannot be dealt with herein I will deal with the chief factors. First of all the grounds for the development of the rule of law is man’s fallen state of depravity. Since human beings are capable of deviating into all manner of deceptive and wicked practices it is best to bind us to rigorous checks and balances when installed in positions of great power and resources such as government in order to prevent abuses. And particularly since history have unequivocally substantiated this as factual. It is therefore in the interest of preventing and addressing human rights abuses to adopt and implement the rule of law above the unpredictable and untrustworthy rule of men with so-called ad hoc discretions. Human rights is the philosophy of law and thus the rule of law. Human rights is the element that gives moral validity to law hence the rule of law doctrine must be developed according to the inalienable concept of human rights if its rule is to be truly pro-rights. The administration of justice cannot be attained if established procedural law was not in place to give certainty to due process to make substantive justice attainable. The rule of law is critical to the function of a civil society. Basic tenets • The rule of a system of laws (constitutional law) that bounds government to publicly declared fixed rules that makes it possible for citizens of a nation to foresee with fair certainty how government will use its powers in given circumstances to ensure no abuse of power or arbitrariness rise while governing the country, •
Separation of powers and legal limits with a Bill of Rights to prevent the centralization of powers pursuant to checks and balances to hinder the government from encroaching upon the rights and freedoms of the people,
Equality under law of all classes of citizens regardless of their position and status in society for the impartial and objective application of the law,
A reasonable and transparent legislative system for developing the laws and policies of the country to make it difficult for the government to pass anti-rights laws or interfere with existing laws that protect the rights and freedoms of the people.
The incorporation of constitutional law as a binding part of the ordinary law of the land to maintain civil order and stability in the operation of society.
Republican constitutionalism was developed as the ultimate logical stage of the historical development of the rule of law as opposed to the former rule of men be it kings, Communistic systems or the likes where limited or no checks and balances to the exercise of arbitrary power existed. The Bill of Rights is that area of constitutional law that pertains to the rights and freedoms of the people. It is the chief area of constitutional law since it enlist the people’s rights and freedoms with measures to be taken to ensure that these limits are observed and the legal 24
protections that must be guaranteed to persons’ rights are well defined. Since the rights affirmed in a Bill of Rights are fundamental, such self-evident rights cannot be made temporary at any time; that is to say all human beings have the right to life, at no point in time would that fact change hence the provisions that protect all such rights ought to be immutable. A constitution should therefore not include provisions that allow the legislature to change laws that protect basic rights by simple procedures such as special majorities. Constitutional interference with Bill of Rights provisions should be made a very difficult and transparent process to allow for sufficient public protest against any anti-rights efforts to interfere with existing rights-protective laws or pass laws that would infringe upon citizens’ rights. Rights-based procedural law is equally important as substantive law to Republican judicial systems. As with all legislation but even more so provisions of the Bill of Rights, the process of making laws must be given to an approach that is meticulous in limiting the possible ways provisions may be misinterpreted, as well as the ideological sensitivity to interpret reality through the eyes of human rights to determine effective yet rights-friendly law. Guidelines Republican Constitutions must contain substantively stated acknowledgments that human rights are inalienable and inviolable preferably in the preamble to so set the spirit and context of the provisions of the entire constitution. Such is also necessary to articulate in the affirmative, government’s legal position on human rights and freedoms to the national community.
The Bill of Rights must make explicit declarations of the basic natural rights and freedoms of the people that are guaranteed equal protection, either by direct declarations or clauses structured in light of relevant particulars; with special reference to the fact that one’s rights and freedoms are the very limits of another person’s rights and freedoms. The declaration of rights is critical to informing and identifying the limits to government’s authority and functions in order to prevent encroachments and abuses.
A Bill of Rights must state that due process is the only means by which convictions can be obtained in the courts of law to determine whether a person/s rights to life or private property or his/her personal freedoms can be justifiably forfeited.
The first Right or Religious Liberty must be given special reference in the Bill of Rights since it is a matter of mind and conscience, that is to say with regard to religious dogma and practice government’s position is that of the following: (a) No legislation of any religion/s and religious dogma/s, (b) No legislation against any religion/s and religious dogma/s and (c) No legislation against the free and full practice of religion. However the only interference by government (law enforcement) in religious affairs is justified and necessary is when instances of crimes are committed in the name of God or religion. As with the American first amendment a provision to ensure legislation remain separate from religion is ideal to a Bill of Rights. 25
Visit the Advisory online at www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com for two examples of a Bill of Rights. That of Trinidad and Tobago and America. These guidelines would be added to over time as further developments to the Bill of Rights are made.
The officers and their positions within TIRL’s headquarters in Trinidad and Tobago. The following is listed with organization positions followed by appointed officer. DIRECTORS • INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - Shannon Bartholomew • INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR - Nyron Medina • ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR - Peter Gabriel ADMINISTRATIVE • INSTITUTE SECRETARY - Cynthia Audain • TREASURER - Merle Joseph • EVENTS MANGER - Amanda Stiell INTERNATIONAL OFFICERS • INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR - Cynthia Audain • INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR - Juliette Pierre • INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR - Deborah Von Bruggen • INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR - Wiesmullan Von Bruggen • INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR - Alban Auguste FIRST FREEDOM OFFICERS • FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANTS - Susan Peters • FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANTS - Randolph Peters • FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANTS - Samuel Lee Ahyn • FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANTS - Lavern Caprietar • •
JUNIOR FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANT - Cristel Stiell JUNIOR FIRST FREEDOM CONSULTANT - Monique Rambharose
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT • RESEARCH OFFICER - Roger Hume • RESEARCH OFFICER - Sandra Hendrickson • RESEARCH OFFICER - Nicole Quashie GLOBAL REPORTS UNIT • REPORTS ADMINISTRATOR - Troy Hollingworth CFRT TECHNICAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT • CFRT TECHNICAL TRAINER - Shannon Bartholomew • CFRT TECHNICAL TRAINER - Nyron Medina LAW DEPARTMENT • ATTORNEY - Douglas Mendes SC • ATTORNEY - Dale Scobie 27
COMMUNICATIONS • VIDEOGRAPHER - Aaron Nicholas • NARRATOR - Desiree Gabriel • NARRATOR - Vanessa Serette • WEBSITE ADMINISTRATOR - Garvin Simmons