THE POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The "human rights" culture.

Human rights.  Yeah, right.  As I see it, there's no such thing as a universal human right.  Rights, whatever category of right you care to name, are rights -- privileges, entitlements, whatever -- which any given society or group confers on its own members.  Thus, members of golf clubs have particular rights peculiar to the membership, nightclubs "reserve the right to refuse admission", the Freedom of Information Act gives us the right to access certain information and UK citizens have the right to vote in UK general elections and so on.

  No rights are automatic, self-evident rights: they are all the result of particular groups or societies defining the rights of their members. It is only by agreeing to abide by and conform with the rules of those societies that we are accepted as members OF those societies and groups. Failure – or refusal – to "follow the rules" will normally result in penalties or exclusion from that group.

 Within those groups and societies -- from the Students Union to the Bar Council, the golf club to the United Nations -- we define rules of eligibility and conduct and agree general or specific limitations to those rights and we pass laws to explicitly deny certain rights -- the right to help ourselves to other people's property, to hurt or damage other people, animals, property etc.  Many of those rights do not exist in other countries and indeed, some other countries give their citizens rights that here would be strictly illegal -- the right to carry a rifle, to own slaves, to treat animals or other humans in ways we would consider distinctly cruel or barbaric, for example.  We extend to everyone in this country some rights simply by virtue of  being here.  The right to wander the public highway, for example, to pursue their own religion, to choose one's own partner and so on. Indeed, we have the right to dress as we please, even to go naked (without outraging public decency, of course) without necessarily inviting visits from sexual predators! It's why we like to think of ourselves as a "free society". It's increasingly under threat.

Within those parameters specifically defined by a nation to protect itself and its members in general, laws and rules are made for that purpose, such as those dealing with terrorism, extremism and the preaching of sedition.  We elect parliaments, giving them the power to make laws that govern the way we live, extract money from us and commit us as a society to international undertakings or even wars. But those powers themselves are not irrevocable and they can be withdrawn if and when the electorate decide.

Some of our citizens' rights are surrendered voluntarily when, for example, joining the Armed Forces and agreeing to submit to the military code of the UK, Queen's Regulations.

Criminals can forfeit many of their rights as a consequence of their actions. They may well forfeit their freedom and spend time in prison. (Oh, and there is no "human right" to comfort! Or TV!). The greater the offence committed, the more rights are forfeited by the criminal – and for longer. Some consider that the best deterrent for would-be criminals who go armed and quite prepared to take someone else's life in order to get what they want, should be the distinct possibility that they will face the same consequence for themselves -- execution. That really WOULD be a "quid pro quo"!

Underlying all this is the concept of accountability.  There is a quid pro quo in society that affects everything.  We are responsible for our actions.  Nobody else is, as a general rule.  It used to be generally understood that if it was your fault that something went wrong, you would be subject to some adverse consequence. When you think about it, that's a distinctly Newtonian proposition -- nothing is without consequence or reciprocal, whether it is payment, an exchange of obligations, debt incurred, favour returned and so on..  The legal profession has changed everything however: today , nobody is responsible for anything.  Ever. We have a new Moral Relativism.

We have developed a culture of dependency and a moral code which seems to make every moral judgement subject to an appraisal based on its financial impact, or possibly any legal precedents, or maybe prevailing European law – and the idea that somehow, blame can be shared. Today, everything is somebody else's fault -- the girl was dressed provocatively and she led me on with her flirting so it's her fault really, claims the rapist's legal team and you know that somewhere, some idiot judge or jury will buy that defence. Increasingly, we have the "cultural offence" bandwagon. In nearly every case, the offence appears to be given by the "host" culture and the offence taken by representatives of a newer, "alien" culture.

We are all "victims" of something or other, or somebody or other, apparently. New causes of our victimhood are constantly being discovered. If it isn't something that somebody said some time that somehow offended us and hurt our feelings (even if we weren't aware of the crime at the time), it will be a new crime definition. Currently, "race" and "hate" crimes are "fashionable". What next? I'm sure there are lawyers or political activists somewhere, working it out. Be warned: lawyers will be involved – that means it will be expensive for the "perpetrators" and profitable for the lawyers.

The truth about Islam. It's NOT a religion of peace.

This post is not one of my own. I've copied it here simply because it's the best way to broadcast its existence via Twitter. It's frighteningly relevant to today's situation, with our politicians locked in a culture of denial about the reality of the threats facing us and our culture's future.

This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.'

'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'

'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'

'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'

'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

'History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, We often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims Have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our Enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.'

'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'

'Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.'

'In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.'

'In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.'

'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it's too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!

JUSTICE? THE DEATH PENALTY CONUNDRUM.

It's very strange that terms like "barbaric" and phrases tumescent with high morality are used to condemn the very concept of the death penalty.  It's strange because the balance of the moral concern expressed seems dedicated to undermining the idea that some crimes deserve the offender to pay the ultimate price.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that every murderer should face the death penalty.  Indeed, circumstances of some murders suggest to me that no more than a moderate -- or even a suspended -- sentence would be an appropriate punishment.
On the other hand, some murders are so calculated, brutal or casual that nothing other than the death penalty could ever be considered justice.  My purpose here isn't to try and suggest a sort of hierarchy of appropriate punishments however.  What is under discussion is the sentence itself. It seems to me there are two fundamental issues which need addressing: the deterrent effect and the risks and costs of mistakes.

DETERRENCE
We need an effective system with a penal code that makes the consequences of conviction too frightening for the crime to be worthwhile.  There needs to be a quid-pro-quo understanding in the minds of, say, somebody planning an armed robbery which goes something like this:-if you are prepared to go out with a shotgun, ready to take life in order to get what you want, you must accept that if you do kill somebody with calculation or deliberation or particular callousness, your own life will be forfeit.  No question.  That same equation should apply to all who murder and kill for a variety of reasons – terrorism, religious or political fanaticism, sexual gratification, financial reward, personal motives of revenge etc.
As it is, life-imprisonment, even without parole, means the killers would have a full lifespan and health support at a cost of around £60,000 a year at the expense of the taxpayers – including relatives of the victims.

RISKS OF MISTAKES
 Yes, mistakes have happened.  The grief caused to the family of the person wrongly executed cannot and must not be underestimated.  "It's better" so the saying goes "that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted."
Well, maybe -- but nothing is without consequence.  Consider this: lack of that ultimate sanction means that there is no ultimate deterrent to what some regard as the ultimate crime.  Statistics, history – and common sense – suggest that as punishments lose their deterrent value, the incidence of the crimes increases. You have only to see the number of times murderers who are released go on to murder again. Well, what have they got to lose? Not their lives, obviously.
The result – more murders means more  anguish and torment for more family members, all because people were in circulation who shouldn't have been around  anyway. Doesn't that also constitute miscarriage of justice?
Moralists and moralisers remain unapologetic. Yes, things went wrong – but it's not their fault.


As I said at the beginning, it's strange.  It's strange how the anguish and moralising about the harshness and barbarity of the death penalty refuses to countenance the anguish and barbarity of the increased murders that would consequently arise.  On the whole, we make a judgement.  My judgement is that there would be fewer miscarriages of justice with the death penalty -- a hell of a lot fewer than there have been increased murders since it was abolished.  If you want to bring morality into it, fine. If you want death penalty advocates to feel guilty for any miscarriages of justice, then the abolitionists must also be prepared to accept responsibility, both for murders that are committed by previously-convicted following their release, as well as other murders that only occurred because there was not adequate deterrence.

I just think that my way will actually save more lives.  Barbaric?  I think not.  Justice.

TROUBLE BREWING

There is a war coming. One by one, the pieces are falling into place. It won't be a war in the way that our parents understood. It won't be country versus country. It will be defined by two issues -- race and Islam. It will be the people of what is generally called the Western world, fighting to protect and reassert their own cultures and identities while facing a seemingly unstoppable mass immigration of alien races and a religious philosophy that is hostile to everything that has built and developed Western civilisation. Worse, those incoming groups know little and care much less about the culture and traditions where they take up residence.

It may well start somewhere like Marseille, a city with one of the largest Arab populations in the world, after Cairo. In France!  There, or maybe Burnley, Haringey, Brixton, Bradford, Bristol, Manchester Moss Side, Brent. If, or rather when it starts, it will spread like wildfire because those tensions are there and have been for years.

At its root, it's less about race than it is about culture -- our culture. You know, the one that we are constantly told by our rulers, libertarians and the BBC, needs to accommodate the incomers because after all, we are a tolerant country.

Tolerant? Really? I think not. Certainly, we put up with things we find irritating -- the noisy kids next door, grandma's nagging and so on. But putting up with something is not the same thing of tolerating it. When we put up with something, we forbear: we do that because we know that it will not last – so we won't NEED to do anything. Tolerance implies acceptance of something as normal, something that does not threaten your way of life. What has happened over the past 50 odd years is not normal. During that period, we have allowed more than 10% of our population to become alien and hostile to everything we used to stand for. One of the consequences is that socially and educationally our systems have to adapt to the additional requirements of that new intake and their descendants. Many of those will be hostile – philosophically, racially and religiously – to the society that made the great mistake of welcoming them with tolerance.

When the war comes, it will be race and Islam-fuelled: whatever you think about the rights and wrongs, we will have no choice -- you will have no choice -- as to which side you are on because that will already have been decided for you by race & the Koran.

EU stitch up. We've been played for suckers all along.

Under the 30 year rule, many government papers and cabinet papers that had been classified as secret were released for public scrutiny. Last year, many of those relating to the 1975 referendum on Europe were released. (Yes, I know that was 40 years ago but it wasn't me doing the research). The findings were alarming and depressing.
　
The deceit and duplicity go back a long way, much further than I ever suspected. We've all been played for suckers by people who "know what we really should be doing". It is uncomfortably close to supporting the conspiracy theorists that links the Bilderburg Group with Common Purpose and worryingly, the same names keep cropping up. (And instinctively, I am not a conspiracy theorist.)
　
　
Quick summary of treasonous secret government documents.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the department that began the abolition of Britain by secretly working for the EU in 1970. The FCO’s secret documents from then were released under the 30 year rule. Ironically, the EU will close the 156 British Embassies around the world, so the FCO is the department the EU will crush the most.
These documents show that immediately after his election on 18th June 1970 Ted Heath began working with Frenchman Jean Monnet of the Comite D'Action pour les Etats-Unis D'Europe. Heath's plan from before he was elected was clearly the abolition of Britain. He and his entire cabinet were dealing with a "United States of Europe" from day one. All his statements about "no loss of sovereignty" he knew to be lies. He was a full-blown saboteur.
All this is blatantly obvious from FC0 30/1048 and those referred to below.
Jean Monnet, the chief implementer of the EU, was allowed deep access into Heath's government, and got the willing co-operation of Sir Alec Douglas Home, William Whitelaw, Geoffrey Rippon, and Sir Keith Joseph, all of who we now know to be traitors to the British Constitution under our own treason laws.
We now also know Heath, Rippon and Roy Jenkins were recruited by the Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst intelligence department in 1958, and had been working for the EU since then. Who are today’s members? Francis Maude, Ken Clarke, David Milliband, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind are probable candidates. We won't know until their deaths.
The government disinformation programme to deceive the public about the EU was underway by 6th August 1970, less than two months after Heath took office.
On 30th September it was authorised by Alec Douglas-Home Secretary of State, and William Whitlaw. Public figures like Joseph Godber MP, Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs, were given secret briefs on the pro-EU message, and what to tell the public. This is all right for political party, but highly illegal for the government.
Norman Reddaway, the campaign's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) full time leader, was involved from before the 10th September, as was Mr Royle.
The speed with which Edward Heath leapt to stab Britain in the back is quite astonishing.
By the 6th October the plans were finished:
Anti EU groups and politicians, like Enoch Powell, were stalked - even when they went abroad; advance copies of their speeches to be obtained from their party leaderships and derisory rebuttals delivered in advance or as soon as possible.
Ministers were recruited to speak for the EU, and given a manual of deception from which to write their speeches.
Six hundred external pro-EU speakers were organised and sent into action.
Overseas information officers were to be controlled and directed on Britain's entry in to the EEC - which was always techincally the EU - a superstate from the beginning.
　
A massive press and media letter writing campaign was begun in which FCO civil servants wrote to the press extolling the wholly untrue virtues of the EU, but signing them as though they were ordinary members of the public.
Whitelaw implemented a pro-EU letter writing to MP's in their constituencies.
They made approaches to the editors of newspapers to get them on side.
They recruited TV and radio recruiters who were pro_EU, and got them more air time.
Then footballers, television personalities - Jimmy Hill included -
The campaign was a huge success - and they finished up with FCO 26/1215, a long summary of results for the future disinformation programme - the one we're under today.
Extracts from other FCO documents including Letters / communications revealed:
FCO 30/1574:
PPS says Heath calls for EU Employment policy (Illegal under our constitution)
17 April 1972 Jellico of the Civil Service Dept, Whitehall, tells Douglas-Home that HMG should ratify the treaty of Accession (obviously illegal). and that EU Political Authority is needed.
19 April 72 Tom Bridges, 10 Downing St, confirms Heath supports Monnet's idea of an EU employment policy.
Our own EU Commissioners are common appointments by all EU govts, not just ours.
EU needs to be a political authority.
　
The unelected Monnet is obviously and illegally the boss.
28 June 72 From Michael Pakenham, Cabinet Office, to Michael Alexander, FCO. Monnet's meeting with Rippon - obviously working together. Action Committee for Europe.
19 May 72. Alec Douglas Home, FCO, to Jean Monnet. "I agree with your method for European unification"
FCO 26/1214 25th Oct 1972 JM Crosby, EU integration dept, tells Redaway & Logan to implement town twinning.
FCO 26/1215 15 February 72 Anthony Royle, FCO, SECRET to William Whitelaw, cc Geoffrey Rippon, Sir Denis Greenhill. Long document summarising successes of the disinformation campaign for future pro EU battles. Govt spent £461,400 on it.
FCO 30/1573 18.172 Jean Monnet, Comite D'Action pour les Etas-Unis D'Europe, To Sir Alce Douglas Home. Common monetary policy, Political prospects.
FCO 30/1061 Snooping on copy of speech by Geoffrey Rippon, in which he lied HMG would not settle for the current common fisheries policy. Lied Britain would still be ruled by the Queen in Parliament, at the same time when he's implementing the Monnet "EU Etats Unis".
1st Aug 71 List of MP's for and against EU, with "persuadables".
FCO 30/1048 How to put the EU across. A manual of deception covering: Sovereignty, the monarchy, influence (strengthened!), don't worry about withdrawal, courts, common law, all lies.
　
FCO 30/1065 Tracking the Britain Out campaign. 10th May 71: 17% in favour of EU.
26/797 Tracking Women Against the Common Market WACM, and Enoch Powell. Anti EU speeches to be given to the government before party seniors deliver them. "Times" on HMG's side?
797 16 April 1971 Tracking Powell in Italy and Frankfurt, plans to counter attack his speeches.
1065: 31 08.71 WK Slatcher Lying to Frere Smith, Anti CM League, that texts of EEC legislation are not available. Then changed their minds in two draft replies?
26/1213. 26 May 71 The plan in advance. William Whitelaw wants a single person coordinating publicity campaign. The Mirror cooperating with Maitlan, The Sun soon. Give ProEU TV producers more access. Persuade TV to use pro EU presenters. Recrut Pro EU footballers, entertainers; (This was stunningly successful; it went right through the nation)
FCO 26/1212 EU disinformation: the public are the priority target. Names missing.
26/1212 6.10.71 to Reddaway: All of it, incl. Letter Writing campaign to newspapers by civil servants pretending to be the public.
17th precursor, then 30.9.70 Reddaway to a list of departments: Secretary of state has approved the campaign.
1212 Privy Council writes to Joseph Gober MP asking him to exploit every opportunity to speak in favour of the EU. Sample phrases follow in 'THE MESSAGE" - a restricted document.
　
1212 6.8.70 Miss JC Petrie, EC Information Unit to Mr Ford: Mr Royle describes the team, campaign of letter writing. Conservative Party Research Dept on side.
Geoffrey Rippon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1970, then Secretary of State for the Environment 1972.
The source for this information is – or was – David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk
Strange, but it is no longer available. I just happened to make a copy at the time – just in case!