Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:20:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RosaCMS_DISSERT.pdf: 3283004 bytes, checksum: c49600980a68a54b94dc4c72f5556c03 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-03-14 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / Ao longo da hist?ria brasileira, o emprego das for?as coercitivas governamentais tem gerado, em certos aspectos, um profundo distanciamento entre a Pol?cia Militar e a sociedade. Pois, durante s?culos, a a??es policiais t?m evidenciado os interesses governamentais, desprezando-se a propicia??o do bem estar social e do interesse p?blico. Todavia, recentemente, com a abertura democr?tica brasileira e uma busca crescente pela fortifica??o dos direitos dos cidad?os, ares de renova??o come?am a atingir o trabalho policial militar e, consequentemente, os paradigmas que regem o processo formativo desses profissionais. Assim, este trabalho se volta ? an?lise da crise de sentido enfrentada pelos policiais militares em forma??o, diante do choque das culturas da ordem, ao confrontarem o militarismo tradicionalista e autorit?rio e as atuais exig?ncias sociais acerca de uma atua??o profissional mais humanizada. Diante da complexidade desse tema, julgou-se pertinente a utiliza??o, n?o apenas de um vasto arcabou?o te?rico, mas, tamb?m se buscou subs?dios em uma extensa pesquisa de campo, a qual forneceu um precioso arsenal de informa??es qualitativas, colhidas das percep??es dos cadetes. Como resultado deste estudo teve-se a comprova??o da hip?tese levantada, concluindo-se que os oficiais policiais militares em forma??o na Para?ba t?m dificuldade em lidar com o momento de transi??o social, marcado pela busca da consolida??o da democracia, pelo qual atravessa o pa?s. Com base no que foi averiguado, chegou-se ao entendimento que esses policiais militares ainda t?m bastante presente, no seu processo ensino-aprendizagem, a dial?tica existente entre um militarismo tradicionalista e autorit?rio, fortemente arraigado, e as atuais exig?ncias sociais acerca de uma atua??o profissional democr?tica, ?tica e humanizada

Magister Legum - LLM / This mini-thesis is based on the presumption that the Danish cartoons and the anti-Muslim clip posted on YouTube as forms of expression, ridiculed the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims which in turn affected the exercise of religious freedom as it violated the dignity of the bearers of the right to freedom of religion and therefore a conflict between the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression exists. The above incidence of conflict between the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression involves infringing the freedom of religion of the Islamic community. Blasphemy in Islam is speech that is insulting to God, but during the course of Muslim history it has become increasingly linked with insult to the Prophet Muhammad. In Islam the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any way is strictly forbidden and is considered blasphemous.

Les droits fondamentaux visent à la protection et à l’épanouissement de la personne humaine. Ils suscitent l’engouement et la controverse. Adossés à des textes internationaux et européens, mais provenant aussi de la réception du terme allemand « Grundrechte », diffusés tant en droit public qu’en droit privé, ils font l’objet de différentes analyses, spécialement en droit public, afin de déterminer leur signification, leurs fonctions, et leur régime. Il apparaît que les recherches conduites en doctrine ne permettent pas d’appréhender le concept de « droit fondamental » avec certitude. En effet, il n’existe pas de conception unique de la notion, les droits fondamentaux apparaissent comme une catégorie juridique insaisissable. Faute de définition claire, ils se distinguent difficilement des notions de « droits de l’Homme » ou de « libertés publiques ». Leur nature juridique est également incertaine. Pour ces raisons, ils constituent un ensemble hétéroclite difficile à délimiter et il convient de regretter que le droit international et le droit européen, pourtant riches en affirmations péremptoires, n'apportent pas un éclairage satisfaisant. La réalisation des droits fondamentaux est également imparfaite. D’une part, ils sont l'objet d'une surenchère caractérisée par une prolifération normative tant en droit interne qu’en droit international. Celle-ci n'est guère maîtrisée et mène à d’inévitables conflits qui, en l’absence d’une hiérarchie clairement établie, sont souvent irréductibles. D’autre part, les techniques de protection des droits fondamentaux s’avèrent insuffisantes notamment en raison de leur instrumentalisation par les différents juges. Les solutions jurisprudentielles sont dès lors imprévisibles et participent au phénomène de l’insécurité juridique. / Fundamental rights aim to protect and develop the human person. They provoke passion and controversy. Supported by international and European texts but also stemming from the German term “Grundrechte”, circulated in public law as well as in private law, they are subject to different analyses, especially in public law, in order to determine their meaning, their functions and their system. It seemed that the research conducted in doctrine does not enable the comprehension of the concept of “fundamental right” for certain. Indeed, a single concept of the notion does not exist, fundamental rights are seen as an imperceptible legal category. Due to the lack of a clear definition, it is difficult to set them apart from notions of “Human Rights” or “Civil Liberties”. Their legal nature is equally uncertain. For these reasons, they constitute a heterogeneous unity which is difficult to define and unfortunately international law and European law, though rich in peremptory assertions, does not provide a satisfactory perspective. The implementation of fundamental rights is equally as imperfect. On the one hand, they are subject to an outbidding characterised by a normative proliferation in domestic law as well as in international law. This is hardly controlled and leads to inevitable conflicts which, in the absence of a clearly established hierarchy, are often relentless. On the other hand, the techniques of protecting fundamental rights prove to be insufficient in particular, due to their manipulation by different judges. The judicial solutions are henceforth unpredictable and contribute to the phenomenon of judicial insecurity.