Government assignment 3.07
identify a current news story or event, or a situation from your own life, in which rights
are in conflict- either between two individuals, between an individual and society, or
between an individual and the government. then do the following:
1. briefly describe the situation.
2. identify the rights held by one of the parties.
3. identify the rights held by the opposing party.
4. based on what you know about the constitution, whose rights should take
priority? why?

Recently in the residential sector where I live (foreign country), it was delivered to all the neighbors a flyer with info about new convivence rules, some of the topics were pets, schedules to determined activities, reunions, one of those caught my attention, ¨no smoking INSIDE the apartments¨.

The fact to forbid smoking inside the private property was definitely a ¨curious¨ event, at least in my community and sector, where smoking was allowed inside each person unit or in the public sectors enabled for the activity. I asked, and somebody told me that different apartments are occupied by retired couples and elder people, the smoke of particular people, was reaching the neighbor ones, generating discomfort, and started to provoke different health problems on them, the complaint was made and later more and more neighbors joined,that´s why after making a private votation, was deliberated to forbid the usage inside the apartments.

Explanation:

2)¨The self-expression ¨ right could be harmed (at least with the local laws of my country) for the smoker, since he is into his home, and taking different measures to avoid to make feel uncomfortable to his neighbours, actually he accomplishes to mitigate great part of the smoke, however the majority of neighbors are elder people, that tends to be a little grumpy, stubborn, and sometimes overreacted, that´s why several complaints were made and the rule got modified.

3) The right of tranquility, and vulnerable people protection: For the elders, clearly the smokers were generating a prejudice for them, their comfortability and even health was being compromised, so clearly were being disturbed inside their residences, without mention that are elders, which have protection priority in this kind of scenarios.

4)

The priority was for the majority, the elders and others who ¨Joined forces¨and made a formal complaint with our sector administration, clearly were being disturbed by the smoke and actions of some neighbors, the number of people who joined the retinue, the fact that are an elder community (priority), and the damage to the health and tranquility of some, were key points for the final decision.

really and truely i dont know sorry

the answer is c     : )

explanation:

i don't have an explanation because i don't know, but i think the answer is c because i googled it and google is right : ) just kidding google isn't allways right but the answer is still c. i hope this !