# data[].attributes.body
It is rather ironic that a document espousing the radical omission that all people are equal also prevents women from being citizens. Indeed, Olympe De Gouges brilliantly ridiculed this irony in her Declaration of the Rights of Women and of the Female Citizen. The contradiction is so obvious to any modern reader, it makes it hard for one to understand how this strong separation of the sexes lasted so long - the idea that men and women should have very specific roles in society; women' roles inferior to mens'. I wonder if this is Aristotle's true legacy...

# data[].attributes.headline
Important of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: 

# data[].attributes.subject
Important of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: 

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that It is one of the most important and fundamental papers of the French Revolutions and in the history of human and civil rights. This paper helped explain basic rights to the French people, and many believed that it was an important step towards international human rights or Universal Declaration of Human rights. Up until today, the ideas written in the declaration are relevant and important in French law. They can be used to oppose or change new laws or other government action as the French law is based off of this document. The declaration called for the destruction of aristocratic privileges by proclaiming an end to feudalism and exemptions from taxation(only the third estate were subject to tax at the time), freedom and equal rights for all ‘Men’, and access to political space was based on skill. It eliminated any special rights of the nobility and clergy.

Women’s rights:

As much as it failed to recognise the rights of women(as only males were considered citizens), it provided a model for which the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen was inspired upon.

‘This revolution will only take effect when all women become fully aware of their deplorable condition, and of the rights, they have lost in society.’

Slavery:

Although there was a lack of explicit mention of slavery in the Declaration, slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue in the Haitian revolution was inspired by it. It led to what would be known as the first successful slave revolt in the New World.

Homosexuality:

The wide scope of personal freedom given to citizens by the declaration provided an environment where homosexuality was decriminalised by the revised law of 25th September - 6 October 1791. Whilst homophobia and discriminatory laws still existed, France and other nations that adopted the French Penal code did not criminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults in private.

As we can see, these are few of the many positive implications of the Declaration and we can observe how massive these implications are in the context of the modern western world.

- Nadeem

# data[].attributes.headline
Modern Importance of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen

# data[].attributes.subject
Modern Importance of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen

# data[].attributes.body
I should like to diverge from the general discussion here and relate something that I recently learned.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen is not only a foundational statement on rights and freedom.

The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen is included in the pre-amble of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. But this not merely a prefunctory statement - it is a binding part of the Constitution! This came as a result of the 1971 decision of France’s Highest Court, the Constitutional Council.

This is incredibly interesting. Despite the political convulsions France has experienced in the past two centuries, the Republic maintains its founding principles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leonore Lavorel – “All equal in rights.” What Rights? Is Abstractness Unsatisfactory? I suggest it is not. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Leonore Lavorel – “All equal in rights.” What Rights? Is Abstractness Unsatisfactory? I suggest it is not. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (DRMC) is an attempt to establish principles of constitutional government based on the natural rights of men, and confer men with the status (and duties) of a nation's citizens rather than a king's subjects.

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights."
Article I, DRMC (1789)

This is the basic and foundational principle of the Declaration. Freedom and equality in rights. Obviously, this is rather abstract, namely vague open to interpretation. Yet, I would like to suggest this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Indeed, "rights" here refer to basic inalienable rights men are naturally entitled to. I argue a common (universal?) interpretation of such rights include rights to life, health, liberty and possession (conception inherited from Locke's political thought). Although it might not explicitly include a right to health care or a right to education, I think it implicitly does. Besides, I would like to point out that the first article of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was made on a similar model. I argue this is proof that the abstract nature of the DRMC is not an issue – all rights is better than no rights!

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 I, UDHR (1948)

# data[].attributes.headline
Andres Gomez- The Declaration and the Problem of National Sovereignty 

# data[].attributes.subject
Andres Gomez- The Declaration and the Problem of National Sovereignty 

# data[].attributes.body
Besides what has already been discussed here regarding the emphasis on private property and how that can be problematic, the emphasis on citizenship is also problematic as it creates a dynamic of inclusion and exclusion. This dynamic is further aggravated when considering that only a very specific kind of individual can be considered to be a citizen, and in the context of 18th century France that just happened to be white, male, rich individuals. Although on the one hand the declaration set the precedent for the liberal tradition of rights thinking, it also confirmed this very narrow definition of citizenship which has led to so many problems regarding who is entitled to have (human) rights and who is not

# data[].attributes.body
1791, BNF (No Creator Identified)

# data[].attributes.body
The key principles of the Declaration are evidently underlining the  liberty of men, who are “born free and equal”. It is also extremely modern in terms of some of its key applications, which touch upon freedom of religion, opinion, expression. Yet, upon closer inspection the precept of revolutionary liberty can be brought into question. The first understanding that “no once can be deprived of private property” (Art XVII) has capitalist echoes and implies a degree of “fossilation” in society which is incongruent with the revolutionary aspiration it attempts to promote.  Is it possible to revolutionise society without redistribution? Can the people really become sovereign if the clergy and the nobility maintain control of the means of production? Marx would disagree. Moreover, although Art III claims that sovereignty must proceed directly from the nation, it is unclear how this should be or what mechanisms this implicitly points to, opening room for interpretation. Finally and most importantly, there is one thing individuals do not appear to be able to break free from: the State. “The law has the right to forbid actions harmful to society” (Art V), and although the law should be “the expression of the general will” (Art VI), how is this to come about? And if this always necessarily possible and true? I believe Arendt will speculate further on how the power of the state, born to preserve and protect property and rights, might bestowed with just about enough power to threaten them.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite Burke affiliating the declaration with Rousseau and thinkers that are explicitly not English, given that for Burke the declaration is explicitly un-English, there are some clear similarities between the thinkers we have studied and the declaration. For example, the focus on property is obviously very similar to Locke's political theory. Moreover, while there is a certain nod to Rousseau's general will, there is also a similarity between the declaration's conception of law and Hobbes' own notion of law. For example, Article 5 outlines that "no one can be constrained to do what it does not order", this is remarkable similar to Hobbes own understanding that anything omitted by the law is something that you can do. For the declaration, however, the pre-political rights seem to be far more expansive than for both Locke and Hobbes', these are set out in article 2 as "liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.". Whilst, we can see some similarities drawn from both Hobbes and Locke, property and safety, it is implied that the right to resistance is far more expansive than both thinkers propose. Thus, I would end, by arguing that Burke may be misplaced in separating the declaration so distinctly from British political thought.

# data[].attributes.headline
-  This declaration seems to be the work of Parisian bourgeois philosophers positioned far from the reality of the Tiers Etat. - The articles in this declaration are all very abstract, leaving mutliple possibility of use. For instance, the first article states that we are “all equal in rights” but what rights? What about education or health care, rights that we today consider to be fundamental?- This abstract is particularly blatant when it comes to the right to property. If every individual has the right to enjoy his own property without anyone’s intervention. What about those who own nothing? In fact, it seems that these rights are too exclusive and can only be put in use by those who have the economic means to enforce them. Therefore, this very individualistic view of human rights, under its immutable and universalist appearance, seems to be a way of protecting the bourgeoisie.- Finally, it seems (especially in the 3rd article) that this individualistic calls for constant revolution and chaos. 

# data[].attributes.subject
-  This declaration seems to be the work of Parisian bourgeois philosophers positioned far from the reality of the Tiers Etat. - The articles in this declaration are all very abstract, leaving mutliple possibility of use. For instance, the first article states that we are “all equal in rights” but what rights? What about education or health care, rights that we today consider to be fundamental?- This abstract is particularly blatant when it comes to the right to property. If every individual has the right to enjoy his own property without anyone’s intervention. What about those who own nothing? In fact, it seems that these rights are too exclusive and can only be put in use by those who have the economic means to enforce them. Therefore, this very individualistic view of human rights, under its immutable and universalist appearance, seems to be a way of protecting the bourgeoisie.- Finally, it seems (especially in the 3rd article) that this individualistic calls for constant revolution and chaos. 