Military Conscription in Denmark It's against gender equality to draft men. But it is part of the constitution. Is there any possibility to "attack" the constitution by going to a judge? Isn't gender equality part of the EU law set, so actually the constitution is actually breaking laws? The military conscription is in my eyes very discriminating, useless, costs a lot, brakes males development (they could have worked, traveled or studied instead) and against equality. Furthermore you have to be checked by a random doctor (no self-determination about your own body), you have to go to an IQ-test (because there actually are people to stupid for the military conscription?) and then you have to sign a document, that you lose some of your rights, like you may not demonstrate or talk bad about the military and so on. If you don't want to, you have to do some social work. Is there any possibility to attack this law? And how to (where should I go to with this)? Thank you very much in advance!
Here is a summary of EU law on gender equality. Have a look at Section 3.4; there is an exemption allowed when the specific tasks require either men or women and there have been specific decisions both ways. The Royal Marines were allowed to exclude women from specific roles; the Bundeswehr were not allowed to make a general exclusion of women. It is certainly arguable that a provision allowing the conscription only of one sex is unlawful. If you are serious about challenging this law then be aware that it will take a lot of time, money and may put your liberty at risk. It is likely to take considerably longer than your period of service to take this through the court system; ultimately this is the sort of thing that will end in the highest court in Denmark. You may be spending time in goal waiting for the outcome. If you want to go through with this you should consult a lawyer who is expert on constitutional law.
Does the said law (or any other law or treaty) prohibit Indians to get the pre-natal gender screening test done outside India (in any country where this is legal)? YES, in theory but I cannot find any relevant case law where this has been considered by the court. Section 23(3) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 (PCPNDT) creates the offence for non-medical practitioners etc: Any person who seeks the aid of any [medical practioner etc] or any other person for sex selection or for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. And section 4(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction for any offences committed by: any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India... Normally, criminal justice action would only be considered once the parties returned to India, but note that section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 allows for trials in absentia. However I cannot find any relevant case law to say whether this has actually happened in this type of scenario.
Is it gender-based discrimination against C and in favour of B and thus a constitutional right violation? Apparently not, according to this source LGBT rights in India, Wikipedia: Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in 2018. [India] has ... explicitly interpreted Article 15 of the Constitution to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. But many legal protections have not been provided for, including same-sex marriage. ... Same-sex marriages are not legally recognised in India nor are same-sex couples offered limited rights such as a civil union or a domestic partnership. However, things appear to moving towards equality - albeit slowly: In 2011, a Haryana court granted legal recognition to a same-sex marriage involving two women. After marrying, the couple began to receive threats from friends and relatives in their village. The couple eventually won family approval.
It is not possible for someone to forfeit their rights because the GDPR is compulsory law. In the EU, laws can be regulatory or compulsory. In case of an agreement, regulatory laws can be set aside, if both parties agree on that. But compulsory laws cannot be set aside. Of course laws can also be partly compulsory. For example provisions which cannot be changed in disadvantage of a consumer. So there is freedom of contract, but it's freedom is reduced by law for the common good or for example to avoid misuse of bargaining power. In particular consumer related laws are often compulsory because it has little power against the other parties. Companies can have their negotiations done by lawyers, so they can make a well informed an well negotiated decision. As an extreme example, you cannot kill someone, even if that person has given you written permission. See also "Peremptory norm" on wikipedia for international law examples.
Yes The only accurate thing in the linked article is: &quot;I am not a Constitutional lawyer.&quot; That could be taken further into &quot;I have no real idea how our legal and political systems work.&quot; One of the tasks of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is to interpret the laws of Massachusetts including the Massachusetts Constitution. In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health the court decided that the Constitution provided for equal protection and due process and that if the state wished to discriminate against people on the basis of sex they needed a good reason. The reasons the state put forward were: providing a 'favorable setting for procreation'; ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as 'a two-parent family with one parent of each sex'; and preserving scarce State and private financial resources. On 1. the court said marriage is irrelevant for procreation and vice-versa. On 2. they said Massachusetts law on child welfare dealt with the &quot;best interests of the child&quot; and that it is not in those interests for the state to deprive the child of benefits because it doesn't like the sexual orientation of the parents. On 3. they said equal protection means equal protection. In a common law legal system like Massachusetts where courts have the power to strike down legislation then that takes effect as soon as the decision is published. The law ceases to exist without the legislature or the executive doing anything. Now, the people of Massachusetts are free to amend their constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage or remove equal protection rights if they want. However, at the time and subsequently, the majority don't want.
34 CFR 106.15 covers admissions, and (e) says Subpart C does not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education which traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one sex. Subpart C, then, kind of redundantly prohibits "discrimination on the basis of sex in admission and recruitment", so that means there is no prohibition against single-sex public institutions of undergraduate education. The remainder of Title 9 applies, though. "Public" institution does not mean "government-run", it means "open to the public", which Wellesley is, although it is not government-run. I am not positive, but I think DLI is not a public school (even though it is operated by the US Army).
In the US, the question of gender and facility-assignment depends on whose prison it is – federal, vs. a specific state. There may be a specific policy adopted by a particular prison system, but there is no specific statute that generally requires segregation of prisoners based on gender. Policies will exist which protect a prisoner's 8th amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment: subjecting a person to repeated violence would be a kind of cruel and unusual punishment. At the federal level, the Prison Rape Elimination Act was designed to eliminate rape in prisons (which was already illegal). The act mandates a zero-tolerance policy, and enables studies of the problem – it does not further distinguish gender categories and/or parameters of sexual orientation. Specific policies are highly variable between states and the federal system. In theory, a state could mandate separate prisons according to birth gender, current gender and sexual preference (or, wings within a facility). I don't know of any system that specially segregates bisexual inmates from mono-sexual ones (etc.). There federal policy on transgender prisoners is explained here. The main policy of relevance is that prisoners are assigned based on their biological sex. Prior policy applied to Transgender individuals, defined as the state of one’s gender identity not matching one’s biological sex. For the purposes of this policy, a transgender inmate is one who has met with a Bureau of Prisonspsychologist and signed the form indicating consent to be identified within the agency as transgender. This step allows for accommodations to be considered That version did not say what "biological sex" is. Under current policy, the facility shall decid[e] the facility assignment for a transgender or intersex inmate, the TEC [Transgender Executive Council] should make the following assessments on a case-by-case basis: followed by, first: use biological sex as the initial determination for designation. Nothing addresses the former Intersex category, and I can find no explicit statements about what rules they use. This article makes some recommendations about this matter (suggesting making an official rule), but that's a desideratum and not the law, and it does not suggest that there is a known policy pursued by the purported TEC (whose actual existence is very hard to verify).
It can (and has) been argued that some of the post-bellum trials of Germans and Japanese (but no Italians because they were Allies now) proceeded on shaky legal grounds. However, the arguments of your friend are wrong. In addition, many of the cases proceeded on solid legal foundations based on war crimes (e.g. the Commando Order) and treatment of prisoners-of-war (e.g. the Stalag-Luft III murders). Citizens and non-citizens are protected by the law and were even in Nazi Germany, albeit not equally. The Nuremberg Laws did not classify Jews as non-humans, merely as non-citizens (which is not to trivialise their awfulness). Superior orders has never been a recognised defence for criminal acts under civil or common law. The first recorded rejection of this defence was in the trial of Peter von Hagenbach in 1474. The roots of modern International Law can be traced to the 16th century and were definitely well advanced by the 19th, let alone the mid-20th. Nations accepted that international treaties and diplomacy were supported by international law and these included the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929, since updated in 1949 (of which Germany was a signatory) among many others. In addition, since the Enabling Act (which instituted Hitler's dictatorship) was quite probably illegal, it can be reasonably argued that all actions that flowed from it (i.e. basically everything that the Nazi's were tried for) was illegal under German law.