Rights Analysis

Rights analysis debates normally involve either restricting or expanding a right, e.g. censorship, or dealing with topics where two rights are in conflict, e.g. hate speech involves freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination. One of the things that you need to do in these debates is to explain why the right that you are favouring is not just important but is important enough to justify expanding it and/or limiting the other rights or issues. It is not enough to just state that it is a fundamental right or mentioned in the Charter/UN Declaration/etc. You also need to analyze why it is important, and why in this case it is more important than the other rights – you can show that it always is if you want to and are able to, but that is a much higher burden. Obviously if you want to limit the right, you do the opposite, i.e. show why other rights or factors outweigh the right in question in this case. If a government (in the real world meaning not the side in favour in the debate) wants to limit a right, it normally needs to show an overriding public interest.  The phrasing in the Canadian Charter of rights is that rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Remember that often debates like this are dispute between two good things, e.g. freedom from racism and freedom of expression.

There are several ways to do that.

Discuss why the right you want to reduce exists, and how that reason is not greatly harmed by reducing it to favour the other right or policy.

Discuss why the right you are promoting exists, and show why expanding it is important given why it exists.

Look at the precedent created for other analogous situations (thin edge of the wedge)

Look at the consequences. You can use an actor analysis (i.e. look at the groups affected) or an area analysis (look at aspects of society) or temporal analysis (look at short and long term)

Look at analogous situations currently or in the past

A number of rights cases involve keeping things for the minority even though the majority wants the right reduced or would benefit if it were reduced. It is reasonable to focus on the minority if you want to protect that right, and to look at the balance between the two if you want to reduce it.

One argument recognized in International Law is temporary additional rights to compensate for past and current problems. This is used to justify things like affirmative action.

Rights that are often in conflict

Freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination (race, religion, etc.)

Freedom of choice and freedom from discrimination

Security and freedom

Equality and freedom

Various types of equality (result, opportunity, gender)

Equality and freedom of religion