Editing Civil liberties (section)

==Asia==

===China===
{{main article|Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China}}
The [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]] (which applies only to [[mainland China]], not to [[Hong Kong]], [[Macau]], and [[Taiwan]]) especially its Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, claims to protect many civil liberties. Taiwan, which is separated from mainland China, has its own Constitution.

Although the 1982 constitution guarantees civil liberties,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html |website=People's Daily Online |title=Constitution of the People's Republic of China|access-date=5 March 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102848/http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html |archive-date= Oct 6, 2014 }}</ref> the [[Government of China|Chinese government]] usually uses the "[[Inciting subversion of state power|subversion of state power]]" and "protection of [[Classified information|state secret]]s" clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) and the [[List of national leaders of the People's Republic of China|state leaders]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSPEK10194620080403|title=China jails rights activist outspoken on Tibet |work=Reuters | date=3 April 2008 |first1=Chris |last1=Buckley |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411174006/https://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSPEK10194620080403 |archive-date= Apr 11, 2023 }}</ref>

===India===
{{Main article|Fundamental rights in India}}
<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: [[File:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] signing the [[Constitution of India]] on 24 January 1950]] -->
<!-- FAIR USE of Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg for rationale -->

The Fundamental Rights{{snd}}embodied in Part III of the constitution{{snd}}guarantee liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and the right to constitutional remedies.<ref name=constpartIII>[[s:Constitution of India/Part III|Constitution of India-Part III Fundamental Rights]].</ref>
[[File:Dyfikolkata (54).jpg|thumb|left|Huge rallies like this one in [[Kolkata]] are commonplace in [[India]].]]
These include individual rights common to most [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]], incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the [[Indian Penal Code]], subject to the discretion of the [[judiciary]]. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practices. Specifically, they resulted in the abolishment of untouchability and prohibited [[discrimination]] on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid [[human trafficking]] and [[Forced labour|unfree labour]]. They protect the cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious [[minorities]] by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the [[High courts of India|High Courts]] or the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In the public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "[[Public interest law|public interest litigation]]".<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICHRL/1995/69.html
| title = ''Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty''; 1995 ICHRL 69
| publisher = [World Legal Information Institute]
| access-date = 2006-05-25
}} This was the case where [[public interest litigation]] was introduced (date of ruling 15 December 1995).</ref> High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports.

The Fundamental Rights emphasize equality by guaranteeing all citizens access to and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply to persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression apply only to the [[Indian nationality law|citizens of India]] (including [[Indian diaspora|non-resident Indian]] citizens).<ref>Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), ''Indian History, World Developments and Civics'', p. A-25</ref> The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to [[Indian nationality law#Overseas citizenship|overseas citizens of India]].<ref name="OCI">{{cite web
| url = http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf
| title = ''Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003''
| pages = 5
| publisher = [[Rajya Sabha]]
| access-date = 2006-05-25
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060425230738/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2006-04-25}}</ref>

Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too.<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICHRL/1995/69.html
| title = ''Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty''; 1995 ICHRL 69
| publisher = [World Legal Information Institute]
| access-date = 2006-05-25
}} This was the case where Fundamental Rights were enforced against private individuals (date of ruling 15 December 1995).</ref> For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits ''[[Forced labour|begar]]''. These provisions act as a check both on State actions and the actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest. In the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|''Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala'' case]], the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.<ref>[[Basic structure#Kesavananda|''Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala''; AIR 1973 S.C. 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225]] – In what became famously known as the "Fundamental Rights case", the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] decided that the basic structure of the constitution was unamendable.</ref> However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, and separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history. In the 1978 ''[[Maneka Gandhi]] v. Union of India'' case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation. According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violates the basic structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights.
The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.<ref>Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), ''Indian History, World Developments and Civics'', p. A-24</ref> The imposition of a [[States of emergency in India|state of emergency]] may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The [[President (government title)|President]] can, by order, suspend the constitutional written remedies as well.

===Japan===
{{Main article|Human rights in Japan}}
Since 1947, [[Japan]], a country with a [[constitutional monarchy]] and known for its socially "conservative society where change is gradual," has a [[Constitution of Japan|constitution]] with a seemingly strong bill of rights at its core ([[:wikisource: Constitution of Japan#CHAPTER III. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PEOPLE|Chapter III. Rights and Duties of the People]]).<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VvL8d8RH-Z8C&q=Japan+conservative+society+where+change+is+gradual&pg=PT225 | title=Japan: A Global Studies Handbook | publisher=ABC-CLIO | author=Ellington, Lucien | year=2002 | location=Santa Barbara, CA | page=209 | isbn=978-1576072714}}</ref> In many ways, it resembles the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] prior to the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], and that is because it came into life during the [[Allies of World War II|Allied]] [[occupation of Japan]].  This constitution may have felt like a foreign imposition to the governing elites, but not to the ordinary people "who lacked faith in their discredited leaders and supported meaningful change."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Law|first=David S.|date=2013-05-26|title=The Myth of the Imposed Constitution|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2270399|language=en|location=Rochester, NY|ssrn=2270399}}</ref>  In the abstract, the constitution strives to secure fundamental individual liberties and rights, which are covered pointedly in articles 10 to 40.  Most salient of the human dignity articles is article 25, section 1, which guarantees that all [[:wikisource: Constitution of Japan#CHAPTER III. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PEOPLE|"People shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living."]]<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/27531.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/27531.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live | title=Japan's foreign policy towards human rights: uncertain changes | author=Yokota, Yozo, & Chiyuki Aoi | journal=Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy: Foundations of Peace, Edited by David Forsythe | year=2000 | volume=United Nations University Press | pages=Chapter 5}}</ref>

Despite the adoption of this liberal constitution, often referred as the "Postwar Constitution" (戦後憲法, Sengo-Kenpō) or the "Peace Constitution" (平和憲法, Heiwa-Kenpō), the Japanese governing elites have struggled to usher in an inclusive, open and [[Pluralist society]].<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H-HODTsc7LsC | title=Building Democracy in Japan | publisher=Cambridge University Press | author=Haddad, Mary Alice | year=2012 | location=Cambridge| page=59 | isbn=978-1107014077}}</ref> Even after the end of [[World War II]] and the departure of the [[Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers#End of SCAP|Allied government of occupation]] in 1952, Japan has been the target of international criticism for failing to admit to [[war crimes]], [[Freedom of religion|institutional religious discrimination]] and maintaining a weak [[freedom of the press]], the treatment of children, minorities, foreigners, and women, its punitive criminal justice system, and more recently, the systematic bias against [[LGBT]] people.<ref name="Japan veering away">{{cite news | url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/25/national/japan-veering-away-from-global-human-rights-standards-says-amnesty-international/ | title=Japan veering away from global human rights standards, says Amnesty International | work=[[The Japan Times]] | date=February 25, 2015 | access-date=July 5, 2016 | agency=[[Kyodo News]]}}</ref><ref name="Japan LGBT Discrimination">{{cite web | url=https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/un-urges-end-discrimination-against-lgbt-individuals-japan | title=UN Urges End to Discrimination Against LGBT Individuals in Japan | publisher=Outright International | work=Analysis | date=July 25, 2014 | access-date=July 5, 2016 |author1=Suzanne Trimel }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/26/national/u-s-rights-report-slams-japan-on-child-abuse-prison-conditions-asylum-system/#.V3sEBJMrJE6 | title=U.S. rights report slams Japan on child abuse, prison conditions, asylum system | work=News report | date=June 26, 2015 | agency=Japan Times | access-date=July 5, 2016 | author=Osumi, Magdalena}}</ref>

The first Japanese attempt to a bill of rights was in the 19th century [[Meiji constitution]] (1890), which took both the [[Constitution of Prussia (1850)|Prussian]] (1850) and [[Constitution of the United Kingdom|British]] constitutions as basic models.<ref>Kazuhiro Takii and David Noble, The Meiji Constitution: The Japanese Experience of the West and the Shaping of the Modern State (Tokyo, Japan: International House of Japan, 2007), 181.</ref>  However, it had but a meagre influence in the practice of the rule of law as well as in people's daily lives.  So, the short and deliberately gradual history of struggles for personal rights and protection against government/society's impositions has yet to transform Japan into a champion of universal and individual freedom.<ref>Andrew Gordon, ''Postwar Japan As History''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, p. 91.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Henderson |first= Dan Fenno |editor-last= Ward |editor-first= Robert E. |title= Political Development in Modern Japan: Studies in the Modernization of Japan |publisher= Princeton University Press |date=2015 |pages=441–445|chapter=Chapter 11: Law and Political Modernization in Japan |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=vqJ9BgAAQBAJ&q=bill+of+rights&pg=PA445 |access-date=July 5, 2016|isbn= 978-1400871667}}</ref><ref>Ugo Dessì, ''Japanese Religions and Globalization''. London: Routledge, 2013, p. 64.</ref> According to constitutional scholar, [[Shigenori Matsui]],

{{Blockquote|text= People tend to view the Bill of Rights as a moral imperative and not as a judicial norm. The people also tend to rely upon bureaucrats to remedy social problems, including even human rights violations, rather than the court.|author= Shigenori Matsui | source="The protection of 'Fundamental human rights' in Japan."<ref>“The protection of ‘Fundamental human rights’ in Japan,” a chapter in Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA, edited by Peerenboom, R. P., Carole Petersen, and Hongyi Chen (London: Routledge, 2006), 149</ref>}}

Despite the divergences between Japan's social culture and the [[Constitutional liberalism|Liberal Constitutionalism]] that it purports to have adopted, the country has moved toward closing the gap between the notion and the practice of the law. The trend is more evident in the long term. Among several examples, the [[National Diet|Diet]] (bicameral legislature) ratified the [[International Bill of Human Rights]] in 1979 and then it passed the Law for Equal Opportunity in Employment for Men and Women in 1985, measures that were heralded as major steps toward a democratic and participatory society.  In 2015, moreover, it reached an agreement with [[Korea]] to compensate for abuses related to the so-called "[[Comfort women|women of comfort]]" that took place during the [[Korea under Japanese rule|Japanese occupation]] of the [[Korean Peninsula|peninsula]].<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35188135 | title=Japan and South Korea agree WW2 'comfort women' deal | date=December 28, 2015 | agency=BBC | access-date=July 5, 2016}}</ref> However, human rights group, and families of the survivors condemned the agreement as patronizing and insulting.<ref name=" horrific story of Korea's 'comfort women' ">{{cite news | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-horrific-story-of-koreas-comfort-women---forced-to-be-sex-sl/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-horrific-story-of-koreas-comfort-women---forced-to-be-sex-sl/ |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live | title=The horrific story of Korea's 'comfort women' – forced to be sex slaves during World War Two | work=Telegraph | date=December 29, 2015 | access-date=July 5, 2016 | author=Sanghani, Radhika | location=London}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

On its official [https://web.archive.org/web/20180423032635/http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/HB/hb-03.html site], the Japanese government has identified various human rights problems. Among these are child abuses (e.g., [[bullying]], [[corporal punishment]], [[child sexual abuse]], [[child prostitution]], and [[child pornography]]), frequent neglect and ill-treatment of [[Elder abuse|elderly persons]] and individuals with [[Disability abuse|disabilities]], [[Burakumin#Discrimination in access to services|Dowa claims]] (discrimination against the [[Burakumin]]), [[Ainu people]] (indigenous people in Japan), foreign nationals, [[HIV/AIDS in Japan|HIV/AIDS carriers]], [[Hansen's disease]] patients, persons released from prison after serving their sentence, [[Victims' rights|crime victims]], people whose [[Human rights#Information and communication technologies|human rights are violated using the Internet]], the homeless, individuals with [[Gender dysphoria|gender identity disorders]], and [[Misogyny|women]]. Also, the government lists systematic problems with gender biases and the standard reference to sexual preferences for jobs and other functions in society.<ref name="Major problems">{{cite web | url=http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/HB/hb-03.html | title=Major Human Rights Problems | publisher=Ministry of Justice, Japan | work=Human Rights Bureau | date=March 6, 2009 | access-date=July 5, 2016 | author=Government of Japan | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423032635/http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/HB/hb-03.html | archive-date=April 23, 2018 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

Human rights organizations, national and foreign, expand the list to include human rights violations that relate to government policies, as in the case of [[daiyo kangoku]] system (substitute prison) and the methods of interrogating crime suspects.<ref>Jeffrey Flynn,  Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach (London: Routledge, 2014), 114.</ref> The effort of these agencies and ordinary people seem to pay off. In 2016, the U.S. Department of State released a report stating that Japan's human right record is showing signs of improvement.<ref name=" human rights improve but problems persist">{{cite news | url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/14/national/social-issues/japan-human-rights-improve-problems-persist-u-s-state-department/#.V3tLxZMrKRs | title=Japan human rights improve but problems persist: U.S. State Department | work=Japan Times  | date=April 14, 2016 | access-date=July 5, 2016 | author=Wanklyn, Alastair}}</ref>