Hak rakyat untuk ke luar negara

Sumber: Sinar Harian

DILAPORKAN sesiapa sahaja yang memburukkan kerajaan boleh dihalang daripada meninggalkan negara ini selama tiga tahun. Ini menurut suatu laporan yang memetik Ketua Pengarah Imigresen bahawa terdapatnya peruntukan tersebut, sambil menegaskan bahawa memiliki pasport Malaysia adalah satu keistimewaan dan bukan satu hak.

Kerajaan, katanya, mempunyai budi bicara untuk mengeluar, menangguh atau membatalkan pasport seseorang.

Perkara ini juga disahkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, yang dilaporkan telah mengatakan bahawa perkara itu bawah kuasa pengarah Jabatan Imigresen memandangkan kebenaran seseorang untuk ke luar negara merupakan satu keistimewaan dan bukannya hak.

“Kuasa untuk membenarkan orang keluar masuk dalam negara bawah pengarah imigresen dan dia juga yang keluarkan pasport. Ia keistimewaan dan bukan hak.”

Timbalan Menteri tersebut juga dilaporkan berkata bahawa seseorang yang ingin ke luar negara seharusnya memeriksa dengan Jabatan Imigresen terlebih dahulu untuk mengetahui status mereka. Menurutnya, kerajaan tidak punya obligasi untuk memaklumkan kepada seseorang tentang apa-apa halangan ke luar negara dan juga sebab-sebab mereka dihalang.

“Senarai (dilarang) memang ada. Jadi kalau isu macam (pengerusi Bersih) Maria Chin, dia patut periksa dengan Jabatan Imigresen sama ada masih dibenarkan ke luar negara atau tidak. Jangan buat tindakan melulu yang terus kata tak boleh keluar,” katanya merujuk kepada halangan ke atas pengerusi Bersih, Maria Chin, baru-baru ini.

Maria Chin adalah antara pengkritik kerajaan yang vokal yang telah dilarang ke luar negara.

Hak untuk ke luar negara adalah suatu hak yang dijamin Perlembagaan Persekutuan, iaitu terangkum dalam Perkara 5, hak untuk hidup dan kebebasan diri. Ini telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam suatu kes yang telah diputuskan sebelum ini.

Untuk menyekat seseorang rakyat Malaysia daripada mengamalkan haknya di bawah Perkara 5, ia perlu menurut suatu undang-undang bertulis yang khusus.

Ada undang-undang yang memberi kuasa kepada kerajaan untuk menyekat orang ke luar negara. Contohnya, di bawah undang-undang, kerajaan boleh menyekat seseorang yang tidak membayar semula pinjaman PTPTN. Ini diperuntukkan secara khusus dalam undang-undang.

Namun demikian kerajaan tidak ada suatu kuasa am yang diperuntukkan bawah undang-undang untuk menyekat seseorang itu keluar negara mengikut suka hati mereka.

Apa-apa sekatan harus dibuat mengikut undang-undang dan bukannya dengan cara ‘tepuk dada, tanya selera’, mengikut suka hati kerajaan.

Persoalannya, mengikut undang-undang apa Jabatan Imigresen menghalang seseorang itu keluar negara kerana ‘memburukkan kerajaan’? Tidak dinyatakan pula oleh sesiapa daripada pihak kerajaan.

Apa-apa sekatan yang dibuat tanpa berlandaskan undang-undang adalah salah di sisi undang-undang dan tidak mengikut Perlembagaan.

Sebenarnya, tidak ada undang-undang yang membolehkan ketua pengarah Imigresen untuk menghalang perjalanan seseorang warganegara dengan pasport yang sah.

Menghalang seseorang daripada ke luar negara apabila ia tidak terbukti di mahkamah bahawa mereka telah melakukan apa-apa kesalahan, adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip keadilan asasi.

Di samping, itu walaupun tidak ada peruntukan khusus yang menyatakan bahawa kerajaan perlu memaklumkan kepada seseorang itu sebab-sebab mengapa mereka dihalang, adalah tidak adil sekiranya kerajaan tidak berbuat demikian.

Ini kerana, jika orang tersebut ingin mencabar halangan tersebut di mahkamah, orang itu perlu tahu secara spesifik mengapa dia ditahan.

Jadi, kenyataan-kenyataan daripada pihak kerajaan tentang menghalang rakyat Malaysia ke luar negara adalah tidak tepat menurut undang-undang.

Sekiranya ada sesiapa yang dihalang ke luar negara dan ia tidak mengikut undang-undang, maka halangan tersebut wajar dicabar di mahkamah.

Kumpulan hak asasi antarabangsa gesa universiti Malaysia henti halang mahasiswa bersuara

Sumber: The Malaysian Insider

Universiti di Malaysia digesa menghentikan penggunaan tindakan disiplin untuk menghalang mahasiswa bersuara dan mengehadkan perdebatan, kata kumpulan hak asasi berpangkalan di New York Human Rights Watch (HRW) susulan kes 6 pelajar didapati bersalah kerana mengadakan sidang media tanpa kebenaran.

Timbalan Pengarah HRW Asia Phil Robertson berkata, universiti sepatutnya menjadi medan untuk perbincangan terbuka dan perdebatan.

“Pelajar tidak wajar didenda kerana bersuara secara aman di bawah penguatkuasaan disiplin universiti,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Enam pelajar tersebut itu yang dikenali sebagai UM6, mengadakan sidang media pada Disember lepas membantah rancangan universiti untuk mengenakan kuota Internet dalam kampus.

Sesi pendengaran disiplin menyebabkan mereka diberi amaran pihak universiti.

Robertson berkata, pihak Universiti Malaya (UM) berulang kali menghalang pelajarnya daripada bersuara membabitkan isu kepentingan awam, tidak membenarkan pembesar suara di universiti dan menghalang perhimpunan pelajar.

Beliau berkata, universiti menggunakan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) dalam kampus secara meluas supaya pelajar patuh kepada undang-undang itu.

AUKU menghalang mahasiswa terlibat dalam aktiviti parti politik dalam kampus atau menyatakan sokongan secara terbuka kepada mana-mana organisasi yang dilihat mempunyai kepentingan peribadi.

Robertson berkata, tindakan UM dengan menggunakan alasan tatatertib ini sebaliknya hanya akan memudaratkan universiti tersebut.

Beliau mencadangkan universiti di Malaysia perlu menerima pandangan pelajar dan bukan mengenakan pelbagai sekatan terhadap mereka.

“Universiti di Malaysia perlu meraikan penglibatan sivik pelajar mereka dan bukannya menindas mereka.

“Sekatan dalam AUKU dan undang-undang disiplin bertentangan dengan semangat kebebasan akademik, melanggar prinsip kebebasan bersuara serta berhimpun dan harus dimansuhkan,” katanya.

Ini kali kedua sekumpulan pelajar UM didenda, selepas 8 pelajar yang dikenali sebagai “UM8” didapati bersalah pada Disember 2014 kerana menjemput bekas ketua pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk berucap.

Being transgender: Facts, myths and rights

Source: FMT News

Human Rights Watch counts 80 countries that continue to criminalize consensual same-sex relations or discussion of LGBT rights, with punishments including prison sentences, flogging, and even the death penalty.

WASHINGTON: Transgender people live under dramatically varying circumstances around the world — often facing violent repression, but also conquering crucial new rights most notably in Europe and the United States.

There are few reliable statistics on the community, in part because many transgender people around the world are unable to come out. And there are sometimes misunderstandings of the complex and changing vocabulary involved.

Transgender people

According to a study published in 2011 by The Williams Institute, an LGBT think tank, an estimated 0.3 percent of the US population is transgender. There are no reliable global statistics on the community, but India’s historic transgender minority alone, known as Hijras, number half a million according to the 2014 census.

The term “transgender” or “trans” refers to people whose gender identity — their innate, deeply-felt psychological sense of being a man, a woman, or neither — is different than the sex assigned to them at birth.

It includes people who have had reassignment surgery, those who have had hormone treatments, or people who have had no medical treatment at all.

– A person who is born female and now identifies as a man is a “transgender man”, or trans man.

– A person who is born male and now identifies as a woman is a “transgender woman,” or trans woman.

Note that it is considered pejorative to use “transgender” as a noun. It is an adjective, as in “a transgender person.”

The term “transsexual” is increasingly avoided.

Transition

A transgender person who is “transitioning” is shifting into their new gender identity by changing their “physical and sexual characteristics from those associated with their sex at birth,” says the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association in the US.

This can be a complex process that might include surgery and body modification, but it does not always. It might also include hormone treatments, group or individual therapy, telling family or friends, or changing one’s name on legal documents.

‘Sex change or ‘reassignment’?

Transgender advocacy groups warn against use of the term “sex change” to describe the surgical processes that some undergo. The groups explain that this is an outdated term, and that transgender people actually put “their bodies in line with who they are” rather than changing who they are.

Their stance is borne out by a growing body of research indicating that sexual anatomy and gender identity are the products of different biological processes — determined by genes as well as hormones — that occur before birth. Sexual anatomy and gender identity usually match, but many events can lead to an incongruence between the two.

Sexual orientation

Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. A transgender man or woman can have any sexual orientation: gay, straight or bisexual.

Anti-discrimination laws

The situation varies greatly for transgender people around the world.

Human Rights Watch counts 80 countries that continue to criminalize consensual same-sex relations or discussion of LGBT rights, with punishments including prison sentences, flogging, and even the death penalty.

In Europe, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in 1989 prohibiting discrimination against transgender people. But among the 28 member states, laws vary greatly. Only 13 states explicitly prohibit violence against transgender people, according to “Transgender Europe”, a European association.

In the United States, anti-discrimination laws are among the most advanced. But whether those laws are also applied to transgender people varies from state to state.

A dozen states including New York, California and the District of Columbia ban the exclusion of gender transition-related care from both private insurance programs and the public Medicaid insurance program, which caters to the poorest segment of the population. Another half dozen states have rules ensuring a limited level of coverage, while the rest offer none.

Prosecute Ibrahim Ali or Jamal Yunos too, rights group says

Source: The Malay Mail Online

Sedition Act 1948

KUALA LUMPUR, May 27 ― A human rights group described today the imprisonment sentence on Vivian Lee for sedition as harsh, noting that no action was taken against others for considerably more racially charged speeches.

Lawyers for Liberty director Eric Paulsen said if the courts found punishment was warranted with Lee’s mock invitation on Facebook for Muslims to break fast with “bak kut teh”, then Malay rights advocates like #Merah169 leader Datuk Jamal Md Yunos or Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali should be prosecuted too.

“First and foremost, the Sedition Act should be abolished. No one in this day and age should be prosecuted for a mere comment without any element of incitement to violence or serious hate speech,” Paulsen told Malay Mail Online.

“Certainly the prosecution policies could have been more even handed, but we do not see the likes of Ibrahim Ali, Jamal Yunos, Ali Tinju etc prosecuted for much more serious speeches,” he added.

Both Jamal and Ibrahim had allegedly issued threats against the Chinese community. The former had led a rally critics said were ostensibly intended to intimidate minority communities, while the latter had suggested the torching of Christian bibles that contained the Arabic word Allah.

There were initially investigated by the police, but no action was taken against them.

Ali Tinju, whose real name is Mohd Ali Baharom, was charged with sedition for allegedly making a racially charged speech prior to the riots outside Low Yat Plaza last July, but his charges were later dropped on grounds of lack of evidence.

Earlier today, the Sessions Court here sentenced Lee, 27, to six months in prison after she was convicted of sedition over a mock greeting featuring the “bak kut teh” pork dish during the Muslim fasting month.

Paulsen described the sentence as excessive and argued that Lee should not be criminalised over a comment, no matter how offensive it may be.

“On the sentence, a custodial sentence seems excessive as the posting, however distasteful, is not really criminal in nature”.

Sessions Court judge Abdul Rashid Daud, in justifying the sentence, said the matter involved the sensitivities of the Muslim community and he was seeking a deterrent with the prison term.

Lee is appealing the sentence and the Sessions Court agreed to allow a stay. But it increased the bail from RM10,000 to RM20,000 and ruled that her passport remain in the court’s possession.

The picture of Lee together with then boyfriend Alvin Tan Jye Yee, which was posted on Facebook on July 11, 2013, carried the words “Selamat Berbuka Puasa (with Bak Kut Teh…fragrant, delicious and appetising)” and the halal logo.

Vivian Lee jailed six months over ‘bak kut teh’ Ramadan photo

Source: The Malay Mail Online

KUALA LUMPUR, May 27 — Vivian Lee May Ling was today sentenced to six months in prison after she was convicted of sedition over a mock greeting featuring the “bak kut teh” pork dish during the Muslim fasting month.  

Sessions Court judge Abdul Rashid Daud said the matter involved the sensitivities of the   Muslim community, and that he was imposing the prison term to deter others from doing the same.

“You know that pork is haram (forbidden) for Muslims.

“Like what the prosecutor said, nasi sudah jadi bubur, even if there was apology, but your actions have injured the feelings of Malaysians,” he said, using the Malay idiom that means “too late to make reparations”.

The judge said the six-month jail term, less the eight days Lee spent in lock-up from July 18 to July 25, 2013, was meted out as this was her first offence.

First-time convictions for sedition are punishable with a maximum RM5,000 fine or a maximum three-year jail term or both.

Immediately after the conviction today, lead counsel Chong Joo Tian sought a good behaviour bond for Lee, noting that the 27-year-old customer support services representative has no criminal record and had started a new life without the ex-boyfriend who was jointly accused over the same mock greeting on Facebook.

Chong also highlighted that she was not the main offender and merely played a passive role over the July 11, 2013 Facebook photo, adding that she had apologised on Facebook and removed the greeting the same day as well as apologised in a YouTube video the next day.

“This shows the accused’s regret in this case. Even though in this case there was evidence of public anger towards the posting, but the evidence shows there was no chaos at all or fights between races or people of different religions,” he argued.

Chong also pointed out that his client had not acted violently or caused physical injury to others, arguing that this was merely a case over an abuse of the constitutional right of freedom of expression and the wrong use of words.

But deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin pressed for a jail sentence of between 20 and 24 months, arguing that there was a need for a “chilling effect” to deter other would-be offenders from mocking the religious beliefs of others in Malaysia.

Wan Shaharuddin cited public interest and argued that Lee’s actions had injured the feelings of both Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia, noting that online comments from many in the Chinese community showed they were upset as well.

“All Malaysians have the responsibility to respect the race and religion of others because it is appropriate social behaviour. It is not the prosecution’s intention to restrict Malaysians in the use of social media or Internet but there needs to be a standard to control an individual to be more responsible when uploading anything on social media,” he said.

He also said the offence was serious and argued the sentencing trend in the Malaysian courts was to impose imprisonment for sedition convictions, citing among others Sabah politician David Orok’s 18-month jail term after he pleaded guilty to a seditious insult of Prophet Muhammad.

“The court will be considered to have failed if it imposed a sentence based on compassion and sympathy on the accused,” he had argued.

After the sentencing, Abdul Rashid allowed the jail sentence to be stayed pending Lee’s appeal to the High Court, but increased the bail from RM10,000 to RM20,000 and ruled that her passport  remain in the court’s possession.

Wan Shaharuddin told reporters later that he will also file an appeal to seek for a harsher sentence to be imposed.

The picture of Lee together with then boyfriend Alvin Tan Jye Yee, which was posted on Facebook on July 11, 2013 during the Muslim fasting month then, carried the words “Selamat Berbuka Puasa (with Bak Kut Teh…fragrant, delicious and appetising)” and the halal logo.

On July 18, 2013, Tan and Lee were charged under three laws: Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act, Section 4(1)(centre) of the Sedition Act and Section 298A(1) of the Penal Code.

But the Sessions Court had on April 14 acquitted Lee over the display of pornographic images on the duo’s now-defunct blog between July 6 and 7, 2013, while Tan — who did not attend trial — was given a discharge not amounting to acquittal.

The Court of Appeal had previously dropped the charge of Section 298A(1) against the duo as it ruled the legal provision did not apply to non-Muslims.

Under the Section 298A(1) charge, the duo were accused of uploading content that could possibly stir hostility among those with different beliefs between July 11 and 12.

Tan jumped bail and is believed to have fled to the United States to avoid facing trial.

Surendran: 18 prison deaths monthly ‘shocking’, unacceptable

Source: FMT News

KUALA LUMPUR: Padang Serai MP N. Surendran has urged Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to provide better and further particulars on a statement he made in Parliament on Thursday on prison deaths. “He should urgently explain to the people the reasons for the high number of prison deaths.”

Further, added the MP in a statement, Zahid should state what immediate steps he proposes to take to address this matter. “He must treat this as a matter of grave importance as it involves the sanctity of human life.”

An average 18 prisoners, according to Zahid, die each month in prison, noted Surendran.

The MP was following up on Zahid revealing that between 2013 and 30 April 2016, 721 prisoners died in Malaysian prisons. “This information was given in answer to a parliamentary question I had submitted to the Home Minister,” disclosed Surendran.

Of this figure, 427 were Malays, 104 Chinese, 91 Indians, 10 others and 89 foreign citizens, according to Zahid, pointed Surendran.

These statistics are shocking and completely unacceptable, he continued. “The prisoners are entitled to the same standard and quality of medical care as the general population.”

The duty upon the prison authorities and government was all the more heavier as prisoners are entirely dependent upon them for medical care, he stressed.

Surendran was referring to Zahid revealing in his answer that the prisoners died mainly from diseases such as HIV, cancer, cardiac arrest, blood problems, tuberculosis, and asthma. “Most these diseases are treatable. They should not have resulted in death if properly managed.”

“There’s no need for so many prisoners to be dying from clearly treatable conditions.”

The treatment of prisoners and the state of the prisons reflects our values as a nation, argued Surendran. “Every human life, whether a prisoner or a person of high rank in society, was equally important and of equal value.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR)

Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Created in 1948 and ratified on 16 December 1949

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The Universal Declaration for Human Rights – infographic by American University of Washington

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

• (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.