Losing Basic Freedoms in the "Human Rights Circus"
Very interesting read indeed in the Sunday Times of London. Do read the whole thing. Here is a piece of it (and yes, once again EU legislation proves to create massive headache):
Last week saw Britain engulfed in a Hallowe’en of human rights. Bishops in cassocks and counsel in wigs were flying in and out of parliament, courts and broadcasting studios like Harry Potters on broomsticks. Afghan hijackers and ranting mullahs had a human right not to be deported. A Nigerian visitor had a human right to a National Health Service heart transplant. A released killer had a human right not to have his parole terms enforced. The dying had a human right to euthanasia and the living a human right to reject a cancer-carrying embryo. . . . From the moment this government decided to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law under the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) there were two racing certainties. One was that the government would be the main offender under the law and the other was that Tony Blair would wish he had never signed it. He has already said he may well “reform” it if it impedes his terrorism legislation. Liam Byrne, a government minister, admitted last week that the government was seeking a new balance between its own discretion and what was implied by the act. This is despite the act being largely declamatory. It can be overridden by parliament, with judges merely declaring any new law “incompatible” with the HRA. Ministers can go on doing what they like if parliament supplies them with a majority. The case of the Afghan hijackers is to the point. In 2000 these nine men hijacked a plane full of fellow nationals and flew it to London. They and 50 others on the plane claimed asylum and were allowed to stay since deportation would have meant certain death. This decision was bizarrely reinforced in 2003 and 2004 despite Afghanistan by then having been “liberated” by British and other forces. The hijackers have since been allowed to live rent-free on benefits in London, incurring some £20m in various costs. Last week Mr Justice Sullivan, a High Court judge, reasserted this decision, not because it was right but because the government’s refusal to fully implement it was wrong. He was scathing of three home secretaries in denying the hijackers proper asylum, including freedom to move about and earn a living. Blair in reply said that the failure to deport was “an abuse of common sense”. But all the case served to do was give human rights a bad name and invite ministers to pass a new law. |
And so the mushy and subjective (and usually brainless) application of "human rights" to a concrete situation results in . . . predictable nonsensical silliness. Well, I've often thought that for some radical activists, the vague term "human rights" has become merely one more weapon with which to beat those people whom they do not like in their pursuit of creating a leftist theoretical paradise. I emphasize theoretical.
And one more thing: Hey, whatever happened to normal, hard-working, law-abiding citizens and OUR rights to be protected from criminals, terrorists, etc.? Are "human rights" people more worried about giving benefits to hijackers than to protecting the rights, property, and liberties of ordinary, taxpaying citizens? Do citizens have to commit spectacular crimes in order to get government aid and subsidized housing? Sometimes it seems so, doesn't it? The whole idea of hijackers living rent-free in London is appalling. Aren't UK taxpayers even slightly annoyed by this?
(The thought occurs to me: Suppose I am in my own house minding my own business. A violent robber invades my home and attempts to steal my property and do me harm. I defend myself and my home, and in so doing, the robber is injured. Maybe I hit him over the head with my wok and give him a big concussion. In the new upside down world of human rights talk, I'll wager that *I* will be hauled into court for violating the "human rights" of the intruder! He may argue some rot in court, like that he had a bad childhood, etc. or that since I possessed a nice home, I was a capitalist oppressor whose property he was going to "liberate" for the "poor proletariat masses." I may even end up having to pay his medical bills. Things have apparently gotten to be this insane in some places in the free world. Am I satirically exaggerating? Oh, gentle reader, I hope so.)
Oh, plus this editorial has also given me my fabulous sardonic phrase of the week: "nonsense on stilts"! This is a terrifically good phrase and I will try to use it as much as I can. *wink* Add to this the equally telling phrase by Blair: "abuse of common sense." Yes, Minister!