Difference Between Human and Civil Rights
Human vs Civil Rights
Every individual is entitled to certain basic rights, which are either inherent or obtained through the constitution. Human rights and civil rights are the two basic rights that are often debated upon. Both human rights and civil rights have their own features and characteristics.
Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because he is human. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual. Some of the basic human rights are the right to life, education, fair trail, protection from torture and freedom of expression.
Human Rights was conceived soon after the second World War. Human rights was widely accepted after the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship. Civil rights have the protection of the constitution. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization. Having a philosophical and legal basis, civil rights is an agreement between the nation and the individual.
Civil rights are related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right. While human rights are basic rights inherent with birth, civil rights are the creation of society.
While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another. Civil rights basically depend on the laws of the country. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country’s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, among other things.
Summary:
1. Human rights are those rights that an individual enjoys because of being human. Civil rights are rights that an individual enjoys by virtue of citizenship.
2. No government body, group or person can deprive human rights to an individual.
3. Civil rights protect the individual from discrimination and unjustifiable action by others, government or any organization.
4. Civil rights is related to the constitution of each country, whereas human rights are considered a universal right.
5. While human rights do not change from one country to another, civil rights differ from one nation to another.
6. Human rights are universally accepted rights regardless of nationality, religion and ethnicity. On the other hand, civil rights fall within the limits of a country’s law, and pertain to the social, cultural, religious and traditional standards, and other aspects.
- Difference Between CNBC and Fox Business - October 3, 2011
- Difference Between Distilled Water and Boiled Water - September 30, 2011
- Difference Between McDonalds and Burger King - September 30, 2011
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
In the USA and many parts of the western world, the right to live cannot be considered to be a human right. It is a civil right received at birth. Roe versus Wade clearly defined unborn children to be unpersons that have no civil rights of protection. As abortion is legal, life must be regarded a civil right. Science is clear that life begins at conception. If the right to live were a human right, the unborn child had this right. As it doesn’t, we have to consider it a cicil right only, which is not universal!
To Andereas Tolk: Your statement “In the USA and many parts of the western world, the right to live cannot be considered to be a human right” is absolutely true, unfortunately. And so with the rest of your comment.
I still don’t under stand the difference between cival and human rights.
A civil right is a right that you obtain as being part of a country or state. A human right is universal and should be established for everyone simply because they are human.
To Saif Ali: A statement of what human rights are really cannot use a conditional such as should or could. Better is: “A human right is universal and is established for everyone simply because they are human.” It turns out that a human right is not secure from infringement or absolute negation by members of a tyrannical government, even if spelled out in documents of law. A single good example of this is the right not to be unnecessarily pushed, shoved, taken to the ground, searched, orifice-probed, assaulted, injured , or killed by “law officers” during an investigation, detention, or arrest action.
Unfortunately, we have in the U.S. a large component of people who do not believe this statement, and who also believe that already existing rights (some call these civil rights) spelled out in plain English in the Constitution can be infringed or negated entirely by mere (unlawful) legislation and enforcement and/or executive order.
If you still dont understand then damn you must be dumb as hell.!
To taekwon: you are not helpful but merely insulting, probably as an attempt to puff yourself up.
Please add more information.
“Civil rights” are written in the lows of any country. It’s clear.
What about “human rights”?
It looks like a value of liberalism, but liberalism is not the one and not the best paradigm of international relationship in the world.
Different peoples can understand this different.
Where is written what is “human rights” and how we have to understand it?
It is evidently clear that Civil Rights based upon the definition is a thought brought on and believed that all people are not human. This is just the prejudice and racist view of American and European ideology. Using the constitution or some law does not make people’s hypothesis correct nor does it make any sense. All people are human and if not show me a man or woman who is not?
After a 911 call made for an attempted break in. The men were gone by the time they got there. They Threatened to commit me if I did not take my medication again, double dosing me. ADD and Valium. I was in an abusive relationship. I was drugged, raped abused and too afraid to call police.
Isn’t the language of the statement in the preamble;
“We the People” a Human Rights Declaration?
Is not the language in the Preamble; “We the People” a Human Rights Declaration ?Google