. Socialization: some ppl jus join in protest to meet new ppl, get into new relationship and all that and if possible they might meet their soulmates..
. Means of Distraction: some ppl use protest as a means of distraction to steal. Cos everyone will b focused on the reason behind the protest and won't be fully conscious about the valuables they carried along with them.
. Also some terrorist may plan on destroying infrastructure using the protest as a cover-up.
how does iliteracy affect society
Answer:
hope it helps
Explanation:
illiterate adults experience poorer health outcomes, less financial security, and lower life expectancies compared to the overall population. Literacy, which conceptually encompasses far more than the ability to read, has become increasingly important as our society becomes ever more dependent on technology.
Which of the following locations would be expected to have the most hours of sunlight on January 15, 2021? A. 50°N 20°E B. 10°N 100°E C. 10°S 100°W D. 50°S 20°W
Answer:100^w
Explanation:
Which act of Congress prevents monopolies?
Answer:
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
Explanation:
Answer:
Sherman Antitrust Act
what religious idea did john calvin and martin luther disagree on
Answer:
The answer is that a person's spiritual destiny is determined by God.
Explanation:
John Calvin developed Calvinism during the 16th century, and Calvinism is the Protestant theological system, which develops Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination. Predestination is the doctrine that God has eternally chosen those whom he intends to save.
During the 16th century, Martin Luther developed Lutheranism, and the theology of Lutheranism is the justification of grace through faith alone for the sake of Jesus Christ, and concentrates on God's favour to every person and not on each person's action toward God. Lutherans believe that the understanding of God's favour depends upon proclamation and interpretation of the Bible.
name and explain two laws that protect citizens against human rights violation
Answer:
Article 2 protects your right to life
Article 2 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to life.
This means that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life. It also means the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk.
Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy.
If a member of your family dies in circumstances that involve the state, you may have the right to an investigation. The state is also required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody.
The courts have decided that the right to life does not include a right to die.
Separately, Protocol 13, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act makes the death penalty illegal in the UK.
Are there any restrictions to this right?
Article 2 is often referred to as an ‘absolute right’. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. There are situations, however, when it does not apply.
For example, a person’s right to life is not breached if they die when a public authority (such as the police) uses necessary force to:
stop them carrying out unlawful violence
make a lawful arrest
stop them escaping lawful detainment, and
stop a riot or uprising.
Of course, even in these circumstances, the force used must be essential and strictly proportionate. Force is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.
The positive obligation on the state to protect a person’s life is not absolute. Due to limited resources, the state might not always be able fulfil this obligation. This could mean, for example, that the state does not have to provide life-saving drugs to everyone in all circumstances.
Using this right – example
A social worker from the domestic violence team in a local authority used human rights arguments to get new accommodation for a woman and her family at risk of serious harm from a violent ex-partner. She based her case on the local authority’s obligation to protect the family’s right to life and the right not to be treated in an inhuman or degrading way.
(Example provided by the British Institute of Human Rights)
What the law says
This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act.
Article 2: Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
in defence of any person from unlawful violence
in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, and
in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Note: See Article 1 of Protocol 13 for the wording in the Act that makes the death penalty illegal in the UK.
Example case: Pretty v United Kingdom [2002]
A woman suffering from an incurable degenerative disease wanted to control when and how she died. To avoid an undignified death, she wanted her husband to help her take her life. She sought assurance that he would not be prosecuted, but the European Court of Human Rights found that the right to life does not create a right to choose death rather than life. It meant there was no right to die at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority.
Case summary taken from Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities, which shares examples and legal case studies that show how human rights work in practice.
What did the Suez Crisis show about power in the Cold War?
· A. Britain was still a superpower.
B. No countries other than the United States had any influence.
C. The United States and the Soviet Union held the balance of power.
D. The UN was the third superpower.
The correct answer is C. The United States and the Soviet Union held the balance of power.
Explanation
The Suez crisis was a military conflict developed in Egypt in 1956. In this conflict, the military alliance formed by the United Kingdom, France, and Israel fought against Egypt supported by the Arab League. This conflict originated because the Egyptian government wanted to nationalize control over the Suez Canal that had been under the control of France and the United Kingdom. For their part, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed this intervention because it threatened their political and economic interests, so the United States requested the withdrawal of the allies, and the Soviet Union threatened to use weapons of mass destruction on the capital cities of England and France. From the above, it can be inferred that in the Suez crisis that the great powers of the moment managed the world under their interests and wanted to keep power balanced between the two of them.
importance of critical listening
Answer:
is as important to listen critically as it is to read critically. Critical listening is a process for understanding what is said and evaluating, judging, and forming an opinion on what you hear.
