Espace public : libertés, droits et devoirs

1. a)The council has voted to require a permit, applied for two weeks in advance, for any gathering of more than twenty people in Maple Square. It justifies the decision by complaints about litter and noise. (1)
2. b)She believes that asking permission to speak destroys the very nature of a public square: a space that requires authorisation is no longer public. She also objects to the two-week delay, which prevents any rapid reaction to a council decision. (1)
3. c)He supports free speech in principle but wants his shop to run undisturbed, so he accepts limits on when and how others may use the square. His position shows that in practice civil liberties are weighed against the duties and interests of other citizens: rights are never exercised in a vacuum. (1)
4. d)It means that a protest is meant to disturb: if it caused no disruption, it would not be noticed and would have no effect. Amara uses the phrase to reject the idea that demonstrations should be scheduled to suit the authorities. (1)

Repère — Une réponse de compréhension cite le texte puis reformule : recopier une phrase entière sans l'expliquer ne rapporte jamais le point complet.

1. a)liberty / right. Les civil liberties protègent contre l'État, les civil rights garantissent l'égalité de traitement. (1)
2. b)to sue. On accepte aussi « take the council to court ». (1)
3. c)whistleblower (ou whistle-blower) : Edward Snowden, en 2013. (1)
4. d)discriminating (to discriminate against somebody ; la préposition against est obligatoire). (1)

Erreur fréquente — Confondre civil liberties et civil rights coûte des points à chaque sujet de cet axe : les premières limitent l'État, les seconds garantissent l'égalité.

1. a)According. According to + nom, sans article ni préposition supplémentaire. (1)
2. b)The journalist argues / contends / maintains that the council was wrong. On accepte aussi « criticises the council's decision ». (1)
3. c)raises. To raise an issue ; to rise ne prend jamais de complément d'objet. (1)
4. d)Proposition : « Amara Okafor defends the right to protest without notice; by contrast, Mr Whitelock believes that rights come with duties towards other residents. » (1)

Le point clé — Une copie se distingue par ses verbes de rapport : argue, contend, claim, advocate, condemn, plutôt que say et think répétés.

1. a)The First Amendment, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, protects freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly and petition. (1)
2. b)The Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, outlawed segregation in public places and discrimination in employment on grounds of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. (1)
3. c)The suffragettes, led by Emmeline Pankhurst, who founded the WSPU in 1903 under the motto "Deeds not words". (1)
4. d)Because the riots that followed a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York in June 1969 turned scattered protest into an organised LGBTQ+ rights movement, commemorated today by Pride marches. (1)

À retenir — Un repère daté et nommé vaut plus qu'un paragraphe d'idées générales : deux exemples précis suffisent à porter une copie entière.

1. a)Attendu : une thèse annoncée d'emblée, sans « I will talk about ». Ex. : « The permit system should be withdrawn: a square where speech requires authorisation is no longer public. » (1)
2. b)Attendu : un exemple daté et nommé (First Amendment 1791, March on Washington 1963, Civil Rights Act 1964, Stonewall 1969, Black Lives Matter 2013), relié à l'argument et non plaqué. (1)
3. c)Attendu : une concession réelle (le bruit, les commerçants, la sécurité) suivie d'une réfutation, avec deux connecteurs correctement placés. (1)
4. d)Attendu : une conclusion qui articule rights and duties et réemploie au moins trois termes du chapitre (civil liberties, accountability, civil disobedience, the rule of law, public sphere). Proposition rédigée : « The permit system should be withdrawn. Freedom of assembly is not a favour granted by a council; in the United States, the First Amendment has protected it since 1791, and the March on Washington in 1963 would never have been authorised two weeks in advance. It is worth noting that residents have legitimate concerns: litter and noise make Saturdays difficult for shopkeepers. However, those problems can be solved by cleaning teams and clear hours, not by a two-week delay that makes any rapid response impossible. Arguably, a council that fears spontaneous speech fears accountability. Citizens do have duties: to protest peacefully, to leave the square as they found it, to respect those who disagree. But duties are the price of rights, not their replacement. Brentwood should protect its public sphere rather than license it. » (188 mots) (1)

Attention — La concession n'est pas une faiblesse : une copie qui reconnaît l'argument adverse avant de le réfuter est systématiquement mieux notée qu'une copie à sens unique.