'Rights'? Wrong!

Dixon

Take Mels point "2" and project that trend forwards. Where does it lead to: pressure groups, of which I particularly have in mind the Greens, will argue that the hypothetical rights of the unknown generality of Humanity demand impositions upon the citizen at large. For example, that the "rights" of their children to protection from "climate change" requires the rationing of air travel to a specified number of air flights per person per year!

Far fetched? Well, the Enviro-Stormtroopers have already succesfully used a similar argument in court when they argued that destroying GM crops was "self defence".

This aside, as a matter of fact, "rights" are only an artefact of society in any case. People seem to have got it into their head that "rights" exist in the same sense that atoms exist. They dont. "Rights" cannot be discovered or "established" in a scientific sense, much as philosophers pretend. They are decided upon or invented. We are born without rights just as we are born without clothes. Of course, those who believe in a "soul" may argue otherwise. As I believe in no such thing, I have to consistently state that there is no such thing as "natural" rights either.

roger cotterill

any bets on the right to remove your dna from the national register will be one of those removed. the totalitarian labour state has faced a set back and knows that all it`s other databases will fall at the same hurdle so therefore remove the hurdle.

israel

roger cotterill:

"any bets on the right to remove your dna from the national register will be one of those removed. the totalitarian labour state has faced a set back and knows that all it`s other databases will fall at the same hurdle so therefore remove the hurdle."

that one has to be opposed at all costs. The government must not be given the right to keep DNA of innocent people for no other reason than it can. Maybe those who have spent so much time promoting fear these last few years can do some good and help defeat this action?

phil

Naive person that I may be, I have always felt that the innate decency and tolerance intrinsic in the British way of life has always been more protective than any human rights legislation .That legislation whenever it is invoked seems to be to put non-deserving cases to the fore rather than the other way round -Hitler was one thing --what we have got now is quite another -how on earth did we ever get into mess,s like preachers of hate and murder being protected rather than their victims .?

Tiberius

What would Mr Straw say, I wonder, if one were to state that this issue proves that John Major did a better job for the country than Tony Blair?

Conservative Cabbie

Does anyone know what the posting guidlines are on this sight, I'm starting to get really hacked off with the number of posts that I make that aren't getting through. I've had two today.

david skinner

A society, such as our own, whose behaviour used to be based on the Ten Commandments, of tolerance and trust and which put the needs of others ahead of its own, that resulted in a proliferation of charitable organisations (and which are increasingly coming under threat of closure from Stonewall) did not require legislation telling us that we could not incite hatred towards the orphan, the homeless, the aged, infirm, the insane, the left handed, ginger haired, height challenged, the overweight and now Goths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=562495&in_page_id=1770

John Adams, the American President, put it well when he said: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’ …
“Our Founders had a better answer than government or even education. God is the answer. God is the moral compass of America. Or He should be, if we ever want to restore morality in our homes and civility to our land. Our Founders believed morals flowed from one’s accountability to God, and that, without God, immoral anarchy would result.”
It was taken for granted not do those sorts of things. How soon will it be before we have an evolutionary ladder of rights to protection, with maybe foxes, giant pandas and whales above the old, infirm, insane and with Christians at the bottom, as they are in China and Tibetans in Tibet? One can only assume that violence may be legitimately visited on those, whose human rights card has expired?
Sadly for seven million British citizens who have never had any human rights, the best start in life is to have been aborted, like the 200,000 babies last year, under the government’s SureStart Programme.

It is not only Christians and the unborn who are threatened. We are all effected:
Martin Niemoller, a German pastor and Holocaust survivor who paid a heavy price for faith and freedom, said:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up”.

http://www.lawatchdog.com/RabbiShifren-WeAreAllMormons112008.html ( We are all Mormons now)

Conservative Cabbie

Israel

"Maybe those who have spent so much time promoting fear"

Mmm, that wouldn't be the right by any chance would it Israel?

Jonny Mac

"Human rights law turns that into ‘only what is codified is to be permitted’..."

No it doesn't. That's flat-out wrong. I suggest you discuss with Joshua how the HRA works before writing about it again.

Dixon

I do think that peoples views on the DNA database are distorted by their misunderstanding of it.

People misunderstand the basic fact that the data does NOT tell anything about the individual, other than relatedness. IE, it is not the individuals "genotype", merely a unique set of stains in a dye. Analogous to a fingerprint. The genotyping that people fear is a different procedure which, at present, costs tens of thousands per individual.

Everyones fingerprints are going to be taken for the new passports and ID cards anyway. Why not have newborn infants DNA fingerprints recorded at birth.

What are you worried about?

stanley Jerusalem

A Russian, an East german and a Brit were sitting on a beach discussing conditions before the wall came down. The Russian said the police could break into your home, terrify your family, trash your belongings and after holding your identitiy papers for weeks, return them with no comment or explanation. The East German described how one could be put in jail without justification have one's papers confiscated and lose one's job without recourse to appeal. The Brit was then asked by the other two how it was when asked by the police for his identity papers.
" What identity papers?" he replied
"Ah", they said. "That is true freedom"

phil

Cabbie I think we have had a blip with the web site today .I have also lost some posts -maybe for the better :)

Ron Todd

Tolerance and trust what like Numbers 31:7 Deteronomy 21:18 Exodus 21:17, and don't claim the new testament is any better James 2:10.
If we are a better society than some it is because we are more secular.

We have had claims about getting tough before. We will deport any illegal immigrants or legal immigrants that commit a crime. Unless they come form a country not as nice as this one. They have got a British citizen pregnant they need medical treatment that is free here but would have to be paid for in their own country.

David Raynes

Cameron promises UK bill of rights to replace Human Rights Act

• Fight against crime being hindered, says Tory leader
•Tebbit warns move could make law more muddled

Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
Monday June 26, 2006
The Guardian

David Cameron yesterday drew an early battleline for the next general
election by promising to devise a "British bill of rights" to replace the
Human Rights Act.
SNIPPED>

CanBdun

New-Labour have fallen out of love whith the Human Rights Act, because they have largely acheived what they wanted from it: Destruction of the British common-law system and Judicial independence from political bias.
The act has been consistantly perverted and selectively used for political purpose. Likewise there are specific get-outs for issues such as deporting terrorists or foreign subversives that the government refused to apply. One can only conclude that they would rather see us blown up than apply the act correctly.
They will soon tear up the act, having no intention of using it for what it was intended.
A UK bill of rights put together by these villains would be a disaster, as would a new written constitution (note:Queens speech)If they are allowed to do this then they would have completed the take-over and we, the freeborn, will leave our children the legacy of slaves.

Verity

Conservative Cabbie - Well, a cabbie getting hacked shouldn't be too surprising ... but I think The Speccie's rickety system is malfunctioning again. I have been trying to send an email to Pete for three days. Not that it comes back, or anything ... I just get notices saying the Postmaster at Press Holdings has "delayed" my message. No need to resend it.

What the hell is i> all about?

Re Cameron's intention to contrive a British Bill of Rights - dear God, can't they leave anything that works alone? Just derogate from the fascist EHRA and revert to our Common Law which has served us so well for centuries. And on which the law of the entire Anglosphere is based. Around what? Two billion people? We don't need a new one.

Re immigrants, of course the illegals should be deported (I would also seize their property, auction it off and give the proceeds to the Exchequer to pay for the amenities they had enjoyed while on our turf) and legal immigrants from the third world should be encouraged to go back for a cash reward - in exhange for leaving a swab of their DNA and a retinal photograph so they can't sneak back in. France already does this.

Israel

Cabbie:

Unless we are in some parallel universe where Major won in '97 then l would say that my ire is aimed at those in charge of the country for the last 11 years.

Voltaire may have been right when he said:

"Tous les meurtriers sont punis à moins qu'ils ne tuent dans les grands nombres et au son de trompettes."

But Benjamin Franklin was really correct when he said:
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm sure we both agree on that point.

Geoff M

Look, this Act was abused from the start. Straw has known this for 10 years but, only now, talking about doing something?

Just a smoke screen to get them through the next election.

Given the recent bounce in Labours polls I now truly believe that you can "fool MOST of the people ALL of the time".

Labour have achieved their goal.

A dumb/cowed indiginous population plus a fragmented Society with mass support from Benefit junkies, public sector workers and "minorities".

A phyrric victory - as Society spirals down into chaos, bankrupty and racial/religious conflict.

phil

The not so fragrant one has now recalled Enoch Powells speech from 1968.

"and legal immigrants from the third world should be encouraged to go back for a cash reward "-

is there no depths to which this person will not sink ?

JohnB

Congratulations on your post Mr Skinner! But what is to be done to rectify the awful state this country is in?

Neuroskeptic

JohnB : How is it in an awful state? I want to see graphs and international comparisons to show how we're awful compared to the past and compared to other people, not anecdotes.

Melanie: "3) Most fundamental of all, the very idea of setting down in statute what rights we have runs absolutely counter to the foundational principle of English common law and the unique principle of liberty it enshrines – that everything is permitted unless it is expressly forbidden. Human rights law turns that into ‘only what is codified is to be permitted’ – which is deeply illiberal."

But wait, you're always saying how bad liberals are? Which is it? Liberal = good or liberal = bad? Make up your Animal Farm-esque mind!

Israel

Neuroskeptic:

I would say it was more 1984 than Animal Farm!!!

stanley Jerusalem

Neuroskeptic
December 9th, 2008 11:43am
Who gives a sh*t how we compare with other countries?
When our system was admired the world over no-one said " Ah yes, but in Ruritania 10% of the political prisoners are pregnant Irish crossing attendants" or some such twaddle. We ploughed our own furrow and the hell with the rest of them. Why are we required to look over our shoulders now in fear of disturbing some hypothetical quota to which a majority of us don't even subscribe. The UN is rife with corruption, so is the EC. NATO is used to bully small and [hopefully] relatively defenceless states. What's left; and more to the point what good do we serve by worrying about it?
The USA was attacked 9/11 and reacted by setting up Gitmo Bay Prison. Do they care? Do they hell! Why should we? Do we need to 'loved ' that much?

Neuroskeptic

Well, in a sense yes modern Britain is a bit like in 1984, but in a more accurate sense, no it isn't in any way whatsoever.

Orwell, by the way, was a socialist. (cues hisses & boos...come on! That's what Obama gets around here and he's not even actually one!)

Tony

The fact that the UK is the only union of countries in europe that has not abolished the human rights Act nor derogated part of it proves to me that we are a police state through and through. The Human rights act is a convenient weapon used to take away human rights that offend our left-wing dictatorship.

Conservative Cabbie

Neuroskeptic

I think you'll find Melanie was referring to proper classical liberalism, not the co-opted name that the marxists and socialists adopted once they realised how idiotic they sounded following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Conservative Cabbie

Israel

I definitely agree with your Franklin quote. Unfortunately, you're comrades on the left don't. We are living in an increasingly "liberal fascist" society. (There's that phrase you don't like).

Conservative Cabbie

Verity

"and revert to our Common Law which has served us so well for centuries"

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Verity. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me, that it's precisely because the common law protection was so weak that we could have the Human Rights act foisted upon us. I'm in favour of a Bill of Rights provided that it is debated throughout the country properly and is put to a referendum requiring a substantial majority in favour (2/3's perhaps). If it is just voted on in Parliament, then it most likely will be a disaster.

Neuroskeptic

"We are living in an increasingly "liberal fascist" society. (There's that phrase you don't like)."

I love that phrase. It's an excellent sign that the person saying it is not worth listening to for a second longer - it saves a lot time! Please keep using it if you feel the urge, people.

Jisi Falas

Human Rights my Ass, they only respect the criminals

Conservative Cabbie

Neuroskeptic

So you don't think H.G. Wells is worth listening to then, he was the person that first used the phrase. I'm sure you know that Wells was an influential progressive, member of the Fabian society and Labour Party candidate. Here's what he had to say.

"I am calling for a liberal fascisti, for enlightened Nazis...they must begin as a disciplined sect but they must end as the sustaining organisation of a reconstituted mankind."

Neuroskeptic

Well no I don't think Wells is worth listening to or reading to be honest (except his fiction) but give him credit, he said that in 1932.

P.S You missed out the obvious slur namely that Oswald Mosley was a Labour MP.

Verity

I don't know, Conservative Cabbie. I thought our Common Law was very strong, which is why it has been copied wholesale through the Anglosphere. We are the only ones who have derogated.

Herbert Thornton

stanley Jerusalem (December 8th, 2008 5:34pm) -

At first I thought your story about the Russian, the East German and the Brit discussing conditions before the wall came down was an apt way to describe our freedom.

However, I think that recent events - e.g. in Warkworth, Northumberland where the owner of the Black Bull Pub was arrested for pinning some newspaper clippings on a wall in his pub; in Liverpool where police arrested several people for distributing political leaflets and later searched their houses, and took away computers, personal effects and other things including a picture; and in London where Police arrested a Member of Parliament, Damian Green and searched his office in the Houses of Parliament - show that the description is out of date.

Nowadays, the Brit can reply - "What identity papers? Our police don't need to ask for any identity papers. They just break in anyway and search and take away whatever they like."

EC

I see another poster has made a reference to Enoch Powell's oft misquoted "Rivers of blood" speech.

For those who have never read what Powell actually said you can read his speech here

Forty years on it seems a very prophetic speech. It wasn't free, it cost him his job and his reputation. Shoot the messenger!

Apropos of the media and the CofE today I thought that this section was particularly relevant:

"There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

Maybe Powell knew that the game was already up. The first of many laws bestowing rights with no responsibilites.

phil

EC he was wrong then as it is wrong now -those people came and accepted responsibilities .perhaps it was some of us who didn't give them rights .

EC

Phil,

Racial prejudice and discrimination that is brought about by fear and ignorance in a minority of the majority can only be tackled by education, and carrots not sticks.

Religious, racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination also occurs in reverse and also between various minority groups in varying degrees of enthusiasm.

I'm not sure that passing laws that by implication find the majority of the majority in England guilty of these moral crimes is going to fix things.

I am certain that many people came here to make better lives and have made themselves very welcome by living amongst us working for the common good.

I am equally certain that the irresponsible immigration and social policies that encouraged the de facto multicultural apartheid of later arrivals have exacerbated matters greatly.

The whole thing is a mess, it is certainly not of Mr. Powell's making and it needs fixing. Any ideas how?

Neuroskeptic

Phil speaks the truth, but can the rest of you handle it?

phil

EC I have no easy solutions .but from my own experience it is only time and education that helps-the immigration policies of recent years have not helped ,but hindered -if economics were easier that would also help as people worried about their futures seem always to turn upon the immigrants-

The points made by EP had some resonance of course as he was a very intelligent and articulate man but I have always felt he spoke irresponsibly in that infamous speech to people who would not have all understood his message -we have had here on our columns one person echoing those sentiments as she perceived it and as EP said he was filled with foreboding, I am filled with disgust at her interpretation of his words ,and I repeat that disgust regularly as many will have noticed - Sadly not many others on these threads feel the need to agree and there lies our problem -Most seem only interested in what they think or write and have little care for others nor the desire to discuss -Compassion seems a rare commodity these days .but one can only hope things will change .

Neuroskeptic --thanks

phil

EC-I THINK I CAN ILLUSTRATE MY POINT WITH A COPY OF A POST I MADE DEC 10 ON THE "RULING "THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NOT ONE PERSON HAS WRITTEN AGAIN ,ESPECIALLY THE AMERICAN ,WHO HAS HAD A LOT TO SAY PREVIOUSLY

" An American thanks for your concern:)-you may well not know who Enoch Powell was in the 60,s ,he was a cabinet minister expected to attain the highest office until he made his "rivers of blood" speech-HE WAS DISMISSED BY THE PRIME MINISTER AND MADE AN OUTCAST BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE -THE SENTIMENTS MADE BY YOUR FRIEND VERITY WERE JUST THOSE EXPRESSED BY HIM ,NOT ONE OF YOU HAS MANAGED TO REPRIMAND HER FOR HER DISGUSTING OUTBURST - so I will stick with the company of normal Brits if you don't mind -we are normally polite ,not racist ,and pretty well balanced as a whole -at times here I feel as if I am in a cesspool of right wing bigots applauding one another .
I have never had any doubt that she will not go away .not so long as you and your friends keep egging on her excesses .no doubt for your amusement -none of you would dare to make those comments in public or in your golf club-you would be thrown out .
Thankfully we have free speech here so she can continue and so will I expose her whenever she does it .no doubt she will enjoy your applause and slither away from the disgust that I still know many feel for her -they just do not come here anymore -how sad !"

"

Neuroskeptic

You're a one-man army facing off against the hordes of the intellectually under-endowed, phil. Does it feel a bit like you're the protagonist in a zombie movie? (Except that the zombies are stupider than in most films and moan louder?)

EC

Phil,

I think that your problem with lack of responses is that "if it aint on Page 1 it aint happening." Something that blogs and the MSM have in common - a short attention span.

Returning to Enoch Powell, EP or even "5-16" ....

I think that EP did for Free Speech what Dr. Harold Shipman did for palliative care. Since that day nobody has been able to question, debate or express legitimate concerns about immigration without being labelled and dismissed as a racist. The ultimate outcome of the cringe reflex is where we are today. The only people to have profited have been the bestial, brutish BNP.

In general I think your campaign for polite posting is a good idea. It is not always easy to give up the habits of a lifetime - with me its sarcasm, cynicism and swearing.(not on blog)

If you want to emphasise some text without appearing to SHOUT you might want to take a look at this

phil

EC-------- how's this I never was schooled in typing its all an adventure . (this was in italic until I transferred it -oh heck !!!

You are of course right that we cannot enter into a sensible debate without the race card being played ,so we are diminished by that -EP just went to far ,and that has to be his own fault in not making clear his intentions .its not ours .

I have only used it to show how some appalling opinions can be put up here because we adhere (correctly)to the idea of free speech ,for me it has to come with responsibility but that has never happened .The person I object to so often takes advantage not only of her anonymity but of the Spectators liberal approach to insult ,accuse and defame all and sundry aided and abetted by her devoted follower ,frank p,actual a man who can make some interesting observations were he not so infected by this woman .

I come here because I feel I have a chance to influence in some small way the society that I am a part of ,and also the belief that if I do not stand up for what I believe I have no right to complain as so many do .It also gives me the chance to" hear" other opinions which sometimes change my perceptions .

ok enough of this serious stuff ,it was a lot for someone who supports OLDHAM ATHLETIC ,and that alone puts me in a very small minority :) and its even worse because I don't come from there !!

NEUOROSKEPTIC -thanks again I think you are right ,but we are saved by the few lucid and sensible people who actual read and comment on each others thoughts -my best to you both

Herbert Thornton

phil - (December 10th, 2008 6:49pm) says -

"EC he was wrong then as it is wrong now - those people came and accepted responsibilities - perhaps it was some of us who didn't give them rights."

If they accepted responsibilities, then why is it that we now have what Bishop Nazir Ali calls 'No go areas'? And mass murders by bombings and attempts at more mass murders? And young men volunteering to go to Pakistan to be trained to be terrorists? And Muslim Clerics urging them on?

As for the notion that 'perhaps it was some of us who didn't give them rights' - it's abundantly obvious that Britain has bent over backwards to confer rights on immigrants. And not merely rights. Under the guise of 'rights' Britain thrusts on immigrants - both legitimate and illegal ones - privileges that exceed those of the indigenous population, especially in matters of welfare, housing and employment.

phil

Herbert I am not getting involved in BNP rhetoric -there are countless thousands who are decent citizens -I am the grandchild of immigrants and I assure you I am a patriotic Brit ,whose grandfather served on the SOMME and I have done my bit in society ,paid my taxes and contributed wherever I could -So lets put a stop to this talk .there are villains in all parts of our society .

Herbert Thornton

Phil,

I enumerated well-known facts. To try to dismiss them as "rhetoric" does not in any way show that they are not true. They are very serious matters.

I have no doubt at all that your family history is exemplary, but it has nothing whatever to do with what I wrote. My father too served on the western front in World War 1 and so did my father in law - he was badly wounded on the Somme & left semi-paralysed - but their war service has nothing to do with it either.

Herbert Thornton

Phil

As has so often happened, my first reply to you has not appeared.

I have no reason to doubt that your family's example, beginning with your grandfather's service on the Somme, has been exemplary: but why you think it necessary to assert it escapes me, because I have never implied that it has been otherwise. Moreover, it has nothing whatever to do with today's immigrant problem. My father also served on the western front in WWI as did my father-in-law (who was wounded on the Somme and partially paralysed as a result) - but that has nothing to do with the present immigration problem either.

You describe my mention of well known facts about the results of recent immigration as 'rhetoric'. Why you think that my mentioning facts amounts to 'rhetoric' also escapes me.

It seems to me that you are reluctant, for some unexplained reason, to face up to reality.

phil

Herbert my point seems to have escaped you ,so sorry mea culpa -the point is that many immigrants become excellent citizens ,and we should not blame the many for the few .I never thought for one moment that you doubted me ,it was ,merely emphasis that immigrants acn have avital part in our countries development .

Herbert Thornton

Phil,

You and I would better understand each other if we were allowed to say more clearly what we think.

One way to get round it that sometimes works is to use circumlocution. Unfortunately, that often results, in being misunderstood.

I want to make it clear - if I am allowed to - that I write of "immigrants" and of the "immigration problem" only because if I write "Muslims" and "Islamic problem", which is what I really mean - my posting is all the more likely to be rejected.

I believe that Islamic immigration needs to be entirely stopped and indeed reversed.

The levels of other categories of immigrants on the other hand need only to be reduced and made more selective. For example, I think we should give preference to highly skilled Chinese immigrants over unskilled Eastern Europeans.