The hypocrisy and legerdemain of the “rights” game

U.N. 1 th

Amfortas is doing a spot of protesting downunder. For OoL readers not up to speed, he is protesting against abortion and apparently there is another chap with him, called Graham and Graham has been charged with failing to move on, for protesting within a certain distance of an abortion clinic for girls.

Decades ago there was a to-do on the mainland about that and opinion was divided. Then it was called a “backyard” abortion clinic.

As you can see in the UN charter above, happily expressed in the childish way beloved of the authorities, the right to all sorts of things is assured. Isn’t it interesting how the authorities, if they wish to push the agenda, resort to childish drawings, as if that will put adults off their guard.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand:

Human beings have rights. The US Constitution, for example, considers that they are ‘Inalienable’ Rights, conferred by Almighty God, but the United Nations begs to differ.

Actually it doesn’t beg at all. They – the massed nations run by Tyrants, Dictators, Thugs, Elites – subvert. Not only do they subvert the simple recognition that people are inherently free and come before States, they subvert their own Declaration.

Bill Whittle showed clearly, in the States, that the freedom to protest depends entirely on what your issue is.

If it is State-approved, e.g. against oppression of women or blacks or against “homophobia”, the latest faux construct, then the tolerance is palpable for all to see. Aren’t we the most tolerant people on earth, everyone reassures themselves and has a happy day.

But try to protest against non-approved matters, e.g. against abortion of young girls at the drop of a hat and suddenly the letter of the law is invoked and where there is no law, they make up pretexts for refusing to allow an inconvenient truth to be expressed. The police and press are complicit, of course.

You would think, surely, that legislators would enhance people’s safe exercise of their inalienable rights when they enact Laws. But no. They drop in ‘trapdoor’ clauses which give preceding rights to other people to trample on yours. Just in case they are too scared to enrage people by actually enforcing their stupid laws.

So, policemen can ‘instruct you’ to ‘move along there’ at whim, with the excuse that ‘someone has complained’.

That ‘someone’ has their identity withheld, of course, to ‘protect’ them from ‘reprisal’, so the police can and indeed do simply make it up.

Take that UN declaration of rights. The trapdoor clause is explained this way by Amfortas:

Contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of its stated universal “rights” away.

Frank Scarn, in the P&B dropped it on us. Article 29 reads:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Do you see the “by law” trick?

Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth “by law.”
In other words, it’s all a charade.

In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people “allowed” to exist but only to serve the state.

Article 29 is a playground for any totalitarian government. In the UN / USSR / EU approach to government then, government “gives,” but government can take away, and still be within compliance with the UDHR by simply referring to and relying upon Article 29.

If a “right’ can be taken away, then no right ever existed. No counterpart of Article 29 exists in the US Constitution. That “by law” limitation trick is found throughout EU documents.

And that’s where we currently are. This is but one instance of the totalitarianism which is rampant in western society and the most galling part is that the very people, the ordinary folk, supporting the authorities banning this, banning that, arresting this person for his views, incarcerating that one, are the self same people who shriek if their own “rights” are being violated.

There is a giant dollop of hypocrisy here but they’ll never admit to it.

1 comment for “The hypocrisy and legerdemain of the “rights” game

  1. March 12, 2014 at 3:55 am

    Do go to my blog post folks and see what Graham Preston has on his plate, by his free choice, daily. I shared a little of it with him. The two preceding posts are about his efforts on behalf of Tasmanians. Graham travelled from Queensland.(that’s about the same distance as Moscow from London.) Click on my name.

Comments are closed.