Eric Heinze is Professor of Law and Humanities at the School of Law Queen Mary, University of London. He has made contributions in the areas of legal philosophy, justice theory, jurisprudence, and human rights. He has also contributed to the law and literature movement.
In The Concept of Injustice, Heinze examines what he calls the 'classical' style of justice theory, running from Plato to Rawls. Classical justice theorists, Heinze argues, depart from notions of 'injustice' on the seemingly obvious assumption that 'justice' and 'injustice' are logical opposites. For Heinze, 'injustice', in ancient and modern Western languages, is a sheer etymological happenstance. 'Justice' and 'injustice' do appear as opposites within conventional, already pre-defined contexts, in which certain norms are uncritically assumed. Outside of such assumptions, however, the relationship between the two terms becomes far more complex.
In order to overcome that recurring error, Heinze proposes a notion of 'post-classical' justice theory, using literary texts as examples. That project continues Heinze's earlier publications in Law & Literature. In an article [1] in the journal Law & Critique, the feminist scholar Adrian Howe examines how Heinze has innovated within critical theory to offer alternative readings of William Shakespeare. Citing the example of The Comedy of Errors, Howe explains how, well into the 20th century, scholars often thought that Shakespeare would not have sought to convey a serious socio-legal critique in a seemingly frivolous play. Heinze, according to Howe, uncovers a "range of socio-legal dualisms; master–servant, husband–wife, native–alien, parent–child, monarch–parliament, buyer–seller. The Comedy, [Heinze] argues, deploys concepts of 'comedy' and 'error' to reflect problematic socio-legal relationships that are based on traditional but changing models of socio-legal domination and subordination." [2] Howe adds that, on Heinze's reading, "it is the viewpoint of the privileged male that is challenged in the play." [3] In The Concept of Injustice, Heinze amplifies those themes. He reviews classical theories of justice, from Plato to Rawls, challenging their assumptions of a seemingly logical opposition between the concepts of 'justice' and 'injustice'.
In the area of human rights, Heinze has frequently challenged Western European restrictions on freedom of speech, as embodied in so-called "hate speech" bans. Heinze argues that a modern democracy has more effective and more legitimate ways of combating social intolerance, without having to restrict speech within the public sphere. [4] According to the free speech expert Eric Barendt, Heinze identifies further problems of coherence within hate speech bans. Barendt writes that the bans, according to Heinze's critique, "are often justified as necessary to prevent discrimination against the targeted racial or other groups. But in fact they themselves discriminate between the groups protected by hate speech laws (racial, ethnic, religious groups and gays) and those left unprotected (other cultural groups, the physically and mentally disabled, transsexuals)." [5]
In his book Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship Heinze reviews ongoing debates about the legality of dangerous, provocative or offensive speech. He concedes that some democracies may be unstable enough to require bans, but one that has crossed a discernible threshold to become what Heinze calls a ‘longstanding, stable and prosperous democracy’ (LSPD) [6] can only legitimately curtail expression within public discourse on ‘viewpoint-selective’ grounds under independently reviewable criteria of a ‘state of exception’ constituting a national security emergency. [7]
Heinze acknowledges that hate speech has led to violence in Rwanda, the German Weimar Republic, the immediate post-Cold War Yugoslavia, and other weaker democracies. None of these, Heinze notes, were LSPDs. Full-fledged democracies, by contrast, have more legitimate and effective ways of combatting violence and discrimination without having to punish persons who hold provocative views. [8] ‘Central to the LSPD model’, according to Lesley Abdela, ‘it can be shown that western democratic states have taken moral and symbolic stands—not always perfectly or without contradiction— but certainly in more than peripheral, lip-service ways. Measures including non-discrimination laws, pluralist primary education (and bans on individually targeted stalking, harassment, or ‘fighting words’) convey the state’s moral and symbolic messages against intolerance or violence.’ [8]
In The Most Human Right: Why Free Speech Is Everything, Heinze argues that internationally recognized human rights have collapsed in part because of institutional failures to distinguish between human rights and human goods. Heinze argues that many traditions throughout history have recognised essential human goods, so if human rights are to play any distinct role, they must do something more than just restate human goods. Scrutinising the concept of a right, Heinze argues that it is only through free speech that human goods can become the objects of human rights, which entails the further conclusion that outside democracy the concept of human rights makes no sense – and simply collapses, at best, into a concept of human goods. [9]
Writing in his regular Irish Times ‘Unthinkable’ Series, columnist Joe Humphreys summarises Heinze’s argument as follows: ‘If a sufficiently democratic environment does not exist, then the thing you are seeking as a “right” is merely a “good”, something desirable which a government may or may not provide.’ [10] As of Spring 2022 The Most Human Right has been nominated for ‘The Next Big Idea’, Season 18 (non-fiction published from February - July 2022). [11] Reviewing the book for the Swedish Dixicon site the international human rights expert Hans Ingvar Roth adds: “it is no coincidence either that many authoritarian leaders throughout history have always first focused on that very right before they started to threaten the others too.” [12]
Heinze has also written on problems of sexuality and human rights. James M. Donovan summarises [13] some of Heinze's criticisms of international organisations. Donovan notes that, in Heinze's view, "the failure to include sexual orientation within the United Nations human rights agenda, by the late 20th century, had resulted not merely in the exclusion of sexual orientation, but in a further mystification of it, which in turn was used to justify its continued exclusion. [14] For Jennifer Wilson, [15] Heinze's view in particular explains "the exclusion of transgender people from anti-discrimination laws." [16] The Norwegian historian of religion Dag Øistein Endsjø contends that, according to Heinze, the absence of any specific reference to sexual orientation or identity in earlier international human rights instruments "does not mean that [sexual minorities'] fundamental rights are excluded from protection by these conventions." [17] Simon Obendorf argues [18] that "homosexual rights are indeed worthy of protection at international law", [19] but questions "Eric Heinze's calls for a treaty-based instrument to codify and enforce principles of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in international law." [20] Obendorf challenges [21] the concept of "sexual minorities" which Heinze, in his book Sexual Orientation: A Human Right, defines as "people whose sexual orientation derogates from a dominant heterosexual norm." [22] Susan Sterett draws greater attention to [23] Heinze's view of fluid and contingent sexual identities and orientations. [24] Heinze, according to Sterett, "maps the discourse of sexual orientation onto postmodernist forms of knowledge, which emphasize the fragmentation of the legal subject." [25] Conway Blake and Philip Dayle further explore [26] Heinze's view "that sexual minorities have become pawns in what [Heinze] calls the international 'sensitivity game'. [27] Blake and Dayle continue:
Heinze's criticisms of international law and institutions have also reached beyond the specific issues of free speech and sexuality. In other writing, he examines how inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations become politicised, therefore failing to adhere to their own professed mandates. According to Rosa Freedman, Heinze explains how state members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, as well as its predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission, have used bloc voting to ensure an entrenched and systemic "sidelining" of attention away from the gravest human rights situations. [28]
Contrary to writers who advocate political compromise and piecemeal approaches, Heinze argues that the criterion of universally even-handed application of norms and standards necessarily inheres within any concept of human rights. [29] He further warns that, insofar as human rights are designed to apply universally to all states, irrespective of political system, they by definition never fully satisfy the requirements of a democratic state. [30]
In The Most Human Right Heinze argues that the concept of human rights has become so diluted within international law and organizations as to carry little if any meaning. Heinze argues that governments and international organizations have failed to distinguish adequately between the concept of human rights and the concept of human goods. Many things are good, such as not being tortured, or having access to enough food, but these goods only manifest as objects of human rights when citizens are sufficiently able to agitate openly and candidly for them, including extensive opportunities to criticize their governments. Otherwise we are left, at best, with nothing but state-monopolized, managerial regimes of human goods, which, Heinze argues, are the arch-opposite of citizen-directed regimes of human rights.
After receiving his Licence and Maîtrise from the Université de Paris, Heinze enrolled as a DAAD scholar at the Freie Universität Berlin. He received a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, and, following a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Utrecht, completed a Doctorate in Law at the University of Leiden. [31]
Heinze's other awards include grants from the Nuffield Foundation; an Obermann Fellowship [32] [ failed verification ] (Center for Advanced Studies, University of Iowa); a Chateaubriand fellowship [33] (French Ministry of Education); a Sheldon fellowship (Harvard Law School); an Andres Public Interest grant (Harvard Law School); and a C. Clyde Ferguson Human Rights Fellowship (Harvard Law School). [31]
Before his appointment at the University of London, Heinze completed work for the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva and the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in New York. Heinze has advised the human rights organisations Amnesty International, Liberty, and the Media Diversity Institute. [34] He also serves on the Editorial Board of The International Journal of Human Rights, [35] and serves on the Advisory Boards for Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Politica (journal of the Italian Society of Political Philosophy) (2021 – present), Heliopolis: Culture Civiltà Politica (2020 – present), and University of Bologna Law Review (2018–present).
Heinze is the author of several books on legal theory and philosophy, including:
Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.
Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair.
Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of female–male sexuality and relationships. According to Elizabeth Cramer, it can include the belief that all people are or should be heterosexual and that heterosexual relationships are the only norm and therefore superior.
Sex-positive feminism, also known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, or sexually liberal feminism, is a feminist movement centering on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women's freedom. They oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether they are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution. They embrace sexual minority groups, endorsing the value of coalition-building with marginalized groups. Sex-positive feminism is connected with the sex-positive movement. Sex-positive feminism brings together anti-censorship activists, LGBT activists, feminist scholars, producers of pornography and erotica, among others. Sex-positive feminists generally agree that prostitutes themselves should not be criminalized.
Catharine Alice MacKinnon is an American feminist legal scholar, activist, and author. She is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, where she has been tenured since 1990, and the James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. From 2008 to 2012, she was the special gender adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Serbia face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Serbia, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is banned in areas such as employment, education, media, and the provision of goods and services, amongst others. Nevertheless, households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.
John Mitchell Finnis is an Australian legal philosopher and jurist specializing in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. He is an original interpreter of Aristotle and Aquinas, and counts Germain Grisez as a major influence and collaborator. He has made contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and moral philosophy.
Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights illustrate how libertarian individuals and political parties have applied the libertarian philosophy to the subject of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. In general, libertarians oppose laws which limit the sexual freedom of adults.
Sexual ethics is a branch of philosophy that considers the ethics or morality or otherwise in sexual behavior. Sexual ethics seeks to understand, evaluate and critique interpersonal relationships and sexual activities from a social, cultural, and philosophical perspective. Some people consider aspects of human sexuality, such as gender identification and sexual orientation, as well as consent, sexual relations and procreation, as giving rise to issues of sexual ethics.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in South Africa have the same legal rights as non-LGBT people. South Africa has a complex and diverse history regarding the human rights of LGBT people. The legal and social status of between 400,000–over 2 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex South Africans has been influenced by a combination of traditional South African morals, colonialism, and the lingering effects of apartheid and the human rights movement that contributed to its abolition.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in North Korea may face social challenges due to their sexuality or gender identity. However, homosexuality is not illegal. Other LGBT rights in the country are not explicitly addressed in North Korean law.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Botswana face legal issues not experienced by non-LGBT citizens. Both female and male same-sex sexual acts have been legal in Botswana since 11 June 2019 after a unanimous ruling by the High Court of Botswana. Despite an appeal by the government, the ruling was upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal on 29 November 2021.
Injustice is a quality relating to unfairness or undeserved outcomes. The term may be applied in reference to a particular event or situation, or to a larger status quo. In Western philosophy and jurisprudence, injustice is very commonly—but not always—defined as either the absence or the opposite of justice.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The Yogyakarta Principles is a document about human rights in the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity that was published as the outcome of an international meeting of human rights groups in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in November 2006. The principles were supplemented and expanded in 2017 to include new grounds of gender expression and sex characteristics and a number of new principles. However, the Principles have never been accepted by the United Nations (UN) and the attempt to make gender identity and sexual orientation new categories of non-discrimination has been repeatedly rejected by the General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies.
Social privilege is a special advantage or entitlement that benefits individuals belonging to certain groups, often to the detriment of others. Privileged groups can be advantaged based on social class, wealth, education, caste, age, height, skin color, physical fitness, nationality, geographic location, cultural differences, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, neurodiversity, sexual orientation, physical disability, religion, and other differentiating factors. Individuals can be privileged in one area, such as education, and not privileged in another area, such as health. The amount of privilege any individual has may change over time, such as when a person becomes disabled, or when a child becomes a young adult.
The right to sexuality incorporates the right to express one's sexuality and to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Specifically, it relates to the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and the protection of those rights, although it is equally applicable to heterosexuality. The right to sexuality and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is based on the universality of human rights and the inalienable nature of rights belonging to every person by virtue of being human.
Homonationalism is often seen as the favorable association between a nationalist ideology and LGBT people or their rights, but is further described as a systematic oppression of queer, racialized, and sexualized groups in an attempt to support neoliberal structures and ideals. The term was originally proposed by the researcher in gender studies Jasbir K. Puar in 2007 to refer to the processes by which neoliberal and capitalist power structures line up with the claims of the LGBT community in order to justify racist, xenophobic and aporophobic positions, especially against Muslims, basing them on prejudices that immigrants are homophobic and that Western society is egalitarian. Thus, sexual diversity and LGBT rights are used to sustain political stances against immigration, becoming increasingly common among far-right parties. In Terrorist Assemblages, Puar describes homonationalism as a "form of sexual exceptionalism [dependent on the] segregation and disqualification of racial and sexual others" from the dominant image of a particular society, most often discussed within an American framework.
Online hate speech is a type of speech that takes place online with the purpose of attacking a person or a group based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, and/or gender. Online hate speech is not easily defined, but can be recognized by the degrading or dehumanizing function it serves.
David A. J. Richards is an American constitutional lawyer and moral philosopher, authoring works which integrate interdisciplinary approaches to law and culture. He is the Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law at New York University.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
