" 

 The problem may be stated simply: what are the ""rights"" in civil rights? Unless you define your terms, your use of those terms will be problematic. As it currently exists, the opening paragraph makes interesting reading. It asserts that civil rights are enforced by governments. This implies that the rights are therefore somehow created by governments and foisted on to the people. This cannot be right (usage intended to make the point). In philosophical terms, the rights already exist independently of the legal system and, when their existence becomes controversial, some of them are formalised into laws (frequently being distorted in a partisan process). Hence, I think the entire page should be rewritten from scratch to remove unjustified assumptions and assertions, and to establish a conceptual framework within which specific examples can be considered. For example, would a use of power to remove or restrict an adult's right to freely associate with another be an infringement of that person's civil rights? Would discriminatory treatment on the ground of nationality, political views. race, religion, gender, disability, etc, all properly be considered within the framework? If so, what is the common denominator as between, say, preventing a transgender person from going through a marriage ceremony and preventing a Christian from interfering in the teaching of science? Without a conceptual framework, the inclusion of any issue you might select will be arbitrary and potentially offend sensibilities because you have not established a neutral POV."