What legislation exists to recognise & protect your terms & conditions of employment on the grounds of sex?
The Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination are: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_la... Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies. See more about prohibited activities and protections available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_pr...
What legislation place does SA have to protect refugees?
In terms of South African legislation, this should not even be a problem. The Constitution protects human rights and there are agencies such as the Human Rights Commission. In terms of legislation there is not much more which can be done. It is all a matter of enforcement. In any event, there are official countermeasures taken.South Africa Launches Plan to Combat Xenophobia and Racism
What legislation is in place to protect refugees?
The Treaty of Dublin protects people who are applying for political asylum although it does also place restrictions on how and where they should claim.In the UK there are various laws such as the Race Relations Act that protect people from discrimination
What is a good legislation used to protect against harassment in the workplace?
You could review the EEOC Home Page.
Should legislation against bigamy be in the same category as legislation against homosexual marriage?
Should legislation against bigamy be in the same category as legislation against homosexual marriage?Not quite, because it’s actually much more complicated.Gay marriage is a very simple question: Straight couples who marry enjoy certain rights and privileges. Expanding marriage rights to provide equality is just a matter of providing precisely the same rights, in terms of hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, and other legal rights. Take the legal documents, substitute “spouse A” and “spouse B” for “husband” and “wife”, and all the rules are already worked out.I see no moral problem with polyamorous relationships and marriages: as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, go for it! But extending marriage rights is not as simple as doing it for gay people, because suddenly there are more people. A person’s legal spouse enjoys unique rights with respect to tax benefits. A person’s two legal spouses can’t each enjoy unique rights: they’d have to somehow divide them. What what about tax benefits? Guardianship of children?I absolutely think that laws explicitly forbidding polyamorous marriages should be stricken down as unconscionable. (Protecting people? They already need protection from abuse in unmarried relationships; the laws to protect people from abuse should be laws against abuse, plain and simple!)But extending legal privileges would open a whole can of worms. Perhaps a simple way to bridge the gap would be to extend legal rights only to designated couples within more complicated marriages and patch things up with civil contracts; and make it clear that default marriage rights do not unilaterally overrule such contracts, that people may legitimately override them. Maybe in the longer run there are better solutions, but that would take a long and complicated hammering out of details.
What are the arguments for and against protecting people from themselves through legislation?
Here in California we have a law which requires motorcycle riders to wear helmets. As a rider my self I resent that law, but I never ride with out a helmet. But, I support the law because not because others might be killed in an accident, head injuries are the number one killer in motorcycle accidents, but because you might be crippled.Many who are crippled in accidents do not have insurance, or resources, to support themselves once they are disabled. If you are disabled in a motorcycle accident you will likely wind up on public assistance. Public assistance is paid for through taxes. So, if you might wind up being supported by me then I have a right to insist you take reasonable precautions.There are many reasons a person might wind up being supported by the state and if you are involved in an activity that be result in you being supported by my tax dollars then I have a right to say something about what you do.I object to privatizing benefits and socializing risk.
Isn't it time legislators seriously consider enforcing laws that protect people in the U.S. not only against physical assault, but against verbal aggression (e.g., spitting on face) and threats to harm in the guise of “free speech”?
Absolutely not!“Free speech” that is subject to government control is, by definition, not free speech.What freedom of expression comes down to, whether it’s by speech, press, broadcast, or any other means of communication, is freedom of thought, even for the thought we hate.(That’s an indirect quote from Justice O.W. Holmes, by the way).If the government can control what it deems to be hate speech, it can control any kind of speech.Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hateful thoughts and opinions can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas.But that’s true only so long as the marketplace of ideas is a free market.
Is there any Australian Law that protects the rights of the homeless people?
If you consider homelessness legislation in terms of the right to housing, there exists no legislation capable of creating any rights to accommodation or duties to house individuals. All states and territories have enacted legislation with respect to the provision of social housing initiatives. However, the Rudd government had an opportunity to introduce progressive legislation to better protect and safeguard housing rights for homeless people in the form of, The Homeless Bill 2013 (Cth). Rudd's successors, however, had no intention of pursuing the bill or introducing the right to housing for the homeless. I would recommend that you read the article, Homelessness Legislation for Australia: A Missed Opportunity by Tamara Walsh and published in the UNSW Law Journal.