Thursday, July 11, 2013

Human Rights and Inhuman Wrongs


From the Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen:

The European Court of Human Rights has declared that a whole life tariff, which means that convicted murderers are never to be released from prison, is 'inhuman and degrading' after an appeal brought by Jeremy Bamber, who killed five members of his family in 1985. The court proposed that those serving life with no possibility of parole should have their cases reviewed after 25 years, following which they might be freed. This decision means that prisoners serving whole life tariffs, including some of Britain’s most notorious killers such as Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, and Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, could be granted permission to seek parole.

Forget your revulsion at the prospect of evil men being rewarded for their wickedness by the prospect of freedom. Forget also the utopian totalitarian ambitions of international bureaucracies such as the ECtHR. Forget even the fact that Britain is a committed member by signature to this international conspiracy, and remember only that no person or state is obliged to give assent to something which is fundamentally irrational and therefore incoherent and finally meaningless. For the doctrine of human rights as defined by the ECHR and upon which the judgement was based is a palpable nonsense.

According to the Court’s doctrine, everyone is born with a right to freedom and dignity. This is not true. It is not a fact. For 'freedom' and 'dignity' are qualities which can exist only within the context of a previously established reality. They are not facts of nature, such as a person's having hands and eyes. If they are to exist at all it is only because they are part of an already existing political reality, the res publica. It is simply not true that such a reality as defined by the ECHR does exist. So statements about freedom and dignity are not statements of fact but aspirational. When the constitution of the ECtHR declares that everyone is born with a right to freedom and dignity, it does not thereby declare a fact – something which can be verified by going and taking a look – but merely expresses the hope that this might become the case.

The difference is crucial. A fact cannot be denied except on pain of absurdity: once something is accepted as a fact, then all reasonable people are obliged to accept it as such; and anyone who does not accept it is either being willfully blind or simply does not understand the meaning of the words being spoken. An aspiration is not a fact but an emotion; and some emotions may be deemed desirable and others not so. That is, if someone expresses an aspiration, anyone else who wishes otherwise is entitled to disagree. The reasonable way of expressing disagreement is by framing an argument. Of course the argument must be valid – constructed on the principles of logic and non-contradiction. And the disputants will be enjoying a meaningful debate if and only if - though each argues a different case – both are arguing logically. Otherwise, they are wasting their time and that of anyone listening by talking nonsense.

This judgement by the ECtHR was nonsensical. We are therefore under no obligation to listen to it. The pope of unreason hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England

89 Comments:

Blogger Angus Slater said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 July 2013 at 09:38  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

While I agree with Cranmer's sentiments, this...

"everyone is born with a right to freedom and dignity. This is not true. It is not a fact. For 'freedom' and 'dignity' are qualities which can exist only within the context of a previously established reality."

...isn't quite right. True, we aren't necessarily born with freedom and dignity, but as to whether we are born WITH A RIGHT to freedom and dignity, that is a question for theology or ethics - a question of the 'ought' rather than the 'is'.

11 July 2013 at 09:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Thomas Wood,

Opening line: "From the Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen..":

11 July 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger LEN said...

The whole' Human Rights' fiasco needs urgent reviewing.

'Human rights' has become a tool used by criminals as a cynical ''get out of jail card' or a 'lever' to manipulate the legal system.








11 July 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Before everyone leaps on me and calls me a Guardian-reading, liberal pinko, could I start off by saying that I vote UKIP, support the death penalty in certain circumstances, and think the sooner we get away from the ECHR and its ludicrous judicial activism the better.

Now that that's clear... :o)

Peter Mullen wrote: "According to the Court’s doctrine, everyone is born with a right to freedom and dignity. This is not true. It is not a fact. For 'freedom' and 'dignity' are qualities which can exist only within the context of a previously established reality. They are not facts of nature, such as a person's having hands and eyes."

I would like to think a Christian clergyman would take a slightly more nuanced stance on the innate dignity of man. Admittedly, Rev. Mullen's record of public statements does not suggest someone who is particularly susceptible to nuance, but even so.

The entire modern discourse on human rights comes from the FACT, for a Christian, that we are all created in the image of God and loved by him equally. The problem comes when that discourse is subverted by activists and unelected judges, not with the principle of innate dignity and equality before God, which for Christians is a reality established before the Creation itself.

11 July 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Years ago we had a minor burglary. We were offered counselling, refused it, but were given it anyway. Had we considerered that our possessions were a temptation to criminals? Had we thought about it from their perspective? Good point: extend it, and it's my fault for being alive. If I didn't exist, they couldn't kill me.

The unresolved problem at the heart of PC (from which so much modern thought flows) is that NOT everyone has rights. Only victims have rights. But when victims make victims of others, things get murky.

Thus, we can say criminals are victims of society (given the abolition of sin). But if you murder someone else, then you have deprived that person of the right to the dignity and freedom of being alive. So what are the rights of that person, and why should they be trumped by the rights of the one who killed them?

11 July 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

Can't help think that this is a problem of our own making. When the death penalty for murder was put aside it was replaced by a sentence requiring the killer to spend the rest of his/her life in prison. Anyway, this is what we simple folk understand by a life sentence. But a life sentence does not mean that anymore. It can mean as little as fifteen years in prison. (With, presumably, time off for good behaviour!) We - and by we I mean British society - have muddied the waters.

11 July 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Darter Noster,

I would like to think a Christian clergyman would take a slightly more nuanced stance on the innate dignity of man.

I think you've answered your own point perhaps. The problem with the European Court is that it lack the metaphysical context to make such claims and is thus incoherent. Secularism undermines claims that speak of value and therefore cannot uphold them.

11 July 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger Albert said...

For clarity: I mean Dr Mullen is quite right in what he is saying.

11 July 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger JohnH said...

For common sense on the matter of human rights I recommend to anyone that they read the speeches and writings of Enoch Powell. As he put it, desires and wishes somehow become transformed into needs, and these perceived needs mysteriously transform into "rights".

I'm also old enough to remember that when capital punishment was abolished - against the overwhelming majority opinion of the public at large - government promised that "life would mean life". I wonder if any political party now is prepared to keep that promise.

11 July 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The so called Conservative politicians will huff and puff and complain about these appalling judgements, as a sort of political show, but as most of them are supporters of the continuing EU takeover, nothing will be done. There is only one party that has the courage to once again make our own laws supreme in these islands.

11 July 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Let's look at the very basic "right" - to life.

What's it based upon? What's its reason? Why have we a right to life at all?

Article 2 protects this right of every person to his or her life. Seems fair enough .... but wait ...

In Evans v United Kingdom, the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo. In Vo v France, the Court declined to extend the right to life to an
unborn child, while stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention".

There we go ... its not only impossible but its undesirable to answer "in the abstract".

But what is a "person? Clearly not a child in its mother's womb. Helpfully, we're told a person isn't a non-human animal, or a "legal person" like the BBC corporation.

And why do we , whatever we are, have this "right" to life? And if its our "right", are we at liberty to give up that "right" or can we forfeit it?

All too complicated for me, I'm afraid. Where's me Catechism!

11 July 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Preacher said...

I believe the law should be a deterrent to those that plan to commit crime, the worse the crime, the harsher the sentence.
Before the abolishment of capital punishment, those found guilty of murder knew what to expect if found guilty. This did not stop some from literally 'Trying to get away with murder' but the cost of failing to escape must have deterred others.

The problem with capital punishment is of course that it is open to error & miscarriage of justice, & obviously irreversible.
Nevertheless a suitable deterrent has to be found.
Life should mean life imprisonment, unless further evidence is later found that proves beyond doubt that the accused was innocent.
The progress of science in current police investigations, (DNA matches etc) can now prove invaluable to establishing innocence as well as guilt.
The victims of murder have been robbed of their lives. they were not offered a chance to appeal, there is no second chance for them, & their loved ones have to live with their loss & grief which often destroys them as well.

The ECHR have got it wrong & we must stand up for justice without vengeance whatever the cost.

11 July 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Albert,

You're absolutely spot on about the lack of metaphysical context in the ECHR.

But where does Rev. Mullen make that more nuanced point? He's left the metaphysics out entirely:

"They are not facts of nature, such as a person's having hands and eyes. If they are to exist at all it is only because they are part of an already existing political reality, the res publica. It is simply not true that such a reality as defined by the ECHR does exist."

Rather than something with greater depth, what comes across is a rant about the concept of human rights existing at all. Going through Rev. Mullen's back catalogue, that would not be entirely unprecedented.

11 July 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rights are human constructs and so the ECHR looks like an assertion of a set of rights to me. It forms a standard by which nations may judge nations and relies on cooperation through the Council of Europe which is an inter-governmental organisation. Our obligations in regard to ECtHR judgements follow from treaty.

11 July 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, other nations may aspire to the contents of the ECHR, or may aspire to the benefits of cooperation with their European peer group as far as rights are concerned.

11 July 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

A man who believes in nothing but material existence will see a life sentence as the equivalent of death because the criminal will be permanently deprived of that which he can give his life purpose - his liberty. The purpose of criminal justice thus becomes an effort to restore the criminal to that state of liberty. Permanent punishment only makes sense if the purpose is retribution. This focus on restoration is a profound devaluation of life for of necessity cheapens the pain & suffering of the victim. The victim is dead however and beyond restoration. Only the criminal may be restored. No crime warrants permanent punishment by this logic.

The first purpose of law is vicarious retribution. It is based upon the assumption that men live in a moral universe greater than themselves - that permanent cost should have permanent consequence. That is what the court has forgotten.

carl

11 July 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I agree with Rev Mullen.

Nobody has the right to freedom and dignity, that's a load of invented tosh.
Freedom and dignity are earned through our personal choices and our choices are based on our morals and values. Morals are taught from the Bible through the teachings of Jesus based on God's laws.

Clearly Jeremy Bamber valued money more than his family and their lives. What's to say he wont murder to save his own financial skin again?

When you make a lifestyle choice to be a murderer/serial killer the risk is life in prison which means you forgo your human rights to freedom for the rest of your life. There are other human rights that apply to you in prison, namely that you be treated humanly and are not tortured and that you have enough to eat etc etc... Not that you have a review in 25 yrs with the likelihood of being free again. That gives something to look forward too and takes away all the gravity of the crime and the punishment, whereas to settle down and accept the best of a life in prison as your lot will put what you've done in perspective.

This ruling from the ECHR is absurd and dangerous. These killers are locked away to protect the rest of society. We really need to get out of the European Union and it's Convention of Human Rights as it's nothing but a communist super state in the making.

11 July 2013 at 13:16  
Blogger Nick said...

The ECHR is trying to assert its own idea of morality. As an atheistic system it does not have the long-established moral framework that stems from Christian beliefs, so it has to fill the vacuum by inventing its own framework.

The problem is that when man considers himself to be his own best judge, we end up with the kind of distorted judgements that puts, for example, criminals rights above those of victims. This sends the wrong message to a society that is already falling apart, and which seeks the right to do whatever it pleases.

I'm not sure we need to start hanging people again. I think we do need to be consistent and resolute about the punishments we do use, and we should stop usurping victims rights with those of the criminal. Before we know, criminals will be appealing against their punishment on the grounds it discriminates against them. May sound stupid, but I've seen so much stupidity from the ECHR and our Government that I think it is a possibility.

11 July 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 12:51.

I'm revisiting an issue we've discussed previously, but it may be new to some readers. Other contributors welcome.

"Rights are human constructs." Does that mean they are not fixed, and could be different?

Imagine if the ECHR were comandeered by a new Hitler type, and experienced an about turn in values: those of a certain hair colour, say, had no right to live.

Would that then become 'right' if the participating nations agreed?

If it were 'wrong', what would be the moral basis for that decision?

11 July 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Rights are human constructs .... "

Really?

But upon what are they based? Reason? Hope? Faith? Or the ability to enforce/uphold them?

As Dr Mullen says: "It is simply not true that such a reality as defined by the ECHR does exist. So statements about freedom and dignity are not statements of fact but aspirational ... the hope that this might become the case."

He goes on: "An aspiration is not a fact but an emotion; and some emotions may be deemed desirable and others not so. That is, if someone expresses an aspiration, anyone else who wishes otherwise is entitled to disagree."

What are the principles leading to a meaningful debate in discussing such "rights"? And what if some people just don't accept the assumptions? Without a foundation, doesn't it all amount to a series of aspirational assertions imposed by an authority with sufficient power to ensure compliance?

For the secular atheist rights will flow from 'natural law' amounting to certain rights or values being seen as inherent in or universally cognisable by virtue of human reason.

For people of faith, 'human reason' cannot fully comprehend the 'Eternal law' of God and must be supplemented by revealed Divine law?

11 July 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Debating the higher reaches of philosophy and metaphysics is beyond me, but, as Nick says, the EU and its court, both sharing the same anti-Christian mindset, is trying to create, invent, some sort of "moral" framework, and therefore tariff for wrong doing, independent of natural law and Christian thinking. Because we are in this country at least steeped in Common Law ideas of justice, which are based on Biblical values, many of us are simply not convinced by the attempts of the European Court to present us with its version of justice. What is particularly worrying is that these ideas and tariffs are so susceptible to changing fashions in political thinking, and therefore may veer about all over the place over the decades.
We must exit the jurisdiction of this dreadful court before the whole of our criminal legal system is brought into even greater disrespect. And to do that , as I understand it, we must leave the political union that we were tricked into joining starting with that treacherous PM Edward Heath.

11 July 2013 at 15:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

If there is nothing more to reality than matter, human rights are nothing more than human ideas or grants from societies and powers to people. This is one of the many disturbing elements of secularism. Secularism demands the removal of religion or anything metaphysical from the structure of debate and leaves us only with matter. But that means there is no basis for human rights except for what societies grant, and therefore, such societies can taken them away. This is why secularism urgently needs to be put back into the category of being one world-view among many others, rather than (as many of proponents claim) being the all-embracing context and judge of all other categories.

It also indicates this kind of secularism is false: we have certain human rights: the right to life, a woman's right not to be raped or a child's right not to be abused, or a homosexual's right not to be killed simply for his sexual orientation. It is flatly untrue to claim that these rights only exist insofar as societies grant them, rather societies recognise them because they are real. This is why we object to states with poor human rights records. It also exposes the amorality of this kind of secularism and leaves us all wondering what our courts are actually working with.

11 July 2013 at 15:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: ""Rights are human constructs." Does that mean they are not fixed, and could be different?"

Of course. Or at least they follow from our arguments anyway.

11 July 2013 at 15:47  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

I suppose I'm asking whether conscience is innate, or a social construct.

If it's innate ("I will write my law in their hearts") then we know what's right and wrong, even though, being fallen, we often do not obey.

If it's a construct, then right and wrong become the majority decision of the community, or the decision of the minority with the power.

Hence a particular moral issue (such as the killing of a particular social group) can be 'right' by social-construct criteria, while wrong by the criteria of divinely-instilled conscience.

I haven't put it very well, but do you see what I'm trying to get at? Can human morality be anything other than arbitrary if there is no God; and hence no divine will to provide the metaphysical underpinning?

11 July 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Dr. Mullen, especially: This judgement by the ECtHR was nonsensical. We are therefore under no obligation to listen to it. The pope of unreason hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. Me, myself, personally --- well I reckon no foreign court should have said jurisdiction.

Our forebears fought against that very tyranny for thousands of years before 1066, and continued ever after it. So our generation is the first to fall flat on its grovelling face and let the Enemy walk all over us.

It is utterly shameful, and I reckon that any free Briton who chooses to ignore all this franco-german claptrap is more than justified in doing so.

Indeed, we should ignore the trap they set to entangle us in arguments about the 'letter' of the law. We know full well that it is underlying 'spirit' that renders law respectable -- and euro-spirit is all about cultural domination and destruction.

As for letting our convicted murderers loose on the rest of us ... isn't that just typical of the marxist euSSR? They'll knock themselves out to give Brady and Sutcliffe a "second-chance" --- meanwhile, their useful idiots practice character assassination on inconvenient individuals who have no criminal record at all.
___________________
PS: And I also say the fewer froggish words we use, the better - that language is 'nobbut' mucked up Latin, anyway. It might help us to recover some self-respect if we remember that, while retaining our own language, we had adapted and developed Latin tradition long before 1066: Alcuin of York (AD 735-804) was our man. He's the one who master-minded Charley-boy's educational set-up ...

11 July 2013 at 16:45  
Blogger Nick said...

If human rights are costructs and follow from human argument, as DanJ0 says, then who decides who has the best argument? In other words, who is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in a secular system? Does a secualr system have any notion of its own concerning what is right and wrong since those notions are constantly on the move?

11 July 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Explorer & Albert,

Forget the meta ph (f) ysiscs... all the patriotic Briton needs to know is that The EU and the rest is Bolshevism gone mad. Why we even entertain the foreign socialist ideas is beyond me!

11 July 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Nick:

Thank you very much. You've perfectly expressed the point I was trying to to make: and much more succinctly than I managed to do.

11 July 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

I suppose I'm asking whether conscience is innate, or a social construct.

These are really questions of how we know something is right or wrong. I'm asking whether something really is right or wrong in itself. For example, we might say right and wrong come from conscience, but that conscience is evolutionary. An earlier society that did not have a conscience against (say) murder would not survive very long. Societies that did have such a conscience would be better equipped to survive (and so it comes as no surprise that we belong to a society which does have such a conscience - other societies without that conscience eventually died out).

The trouble with this is that someone can come along and simply deny conscience. On this level, conscience has simply been reduced to what actually worked in evolution - and if that is the case, there is no truth or falsity involved. And that means that someone can deny conscience.

This is why right and wrong have to be prior to conscience - what is conscience based on? There has to be some metaphysical truth - that human beings just do have innate value for instance - and it is that that we recognise as a right. If so, then courts can recognise which rights they like - it won't change the actual truth of the matter.

Can human morality be anything other than arbitrary if there is no God; and hence no divine will to provide the metaphysical underpinning?

I'm yet to see such a system (unless you include Plato's forms). But notice how an atheist will reply to your question. He will say that if all it rests on is divine will then it is arbitrary and it may as well rest on someone else's will (like his own).

That's why we need to go further than God's will and say God's will is such because it knows and loves God's truth.

11 July 2013 at 17:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: Though one hardly dares mention his name, nowadays ... This from someone who witnessed a good bit of 'man's inhumanity to man':

I heard a thousand blended notes
While in a grove I sat reclined
In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts
Bring sad thoughts to the mind.

To her fair works did nature link
The human soul that through me ran,
And much it grieved my heart to think
What man has made of man.


Through primrose-tufts, in that sweet bower,
The periwinkle trailed its wreaths.
And 'tis my faith that every flower
Enjoys the air it breathes.

The birds around me hopped and played,
Their thoughts I cannot measure,
But the least motion which they made -
It seemed a thrill of pleasure.

The budding twigs spread out their fan
To catch the breezy air;
And I must think, do all I can,
That there was pleasure there.

If I these thoughts may not prevent
If such be of my creed the plan,
Have I not reason to lament
What man has made of man?
[my stress]
_______________
Wordsworth, William. "Lines Written in Early Spring" [1798]. Romanticism: An Anthology. Ed. Duncan Wu. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994; 208.

11 July 2013 at 17:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "If human rights are costructs and follow from human argument, as DanJ0 says, then who decides who has the best argument?"

Who decides which religion is best? Afterall, we have plenty to choose from in human history. Human constructs, the lot of them, as far as I'm concerned.

11 July 2013 at 17:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Who decides which religion is best? Afterall, we have plenty to choose from in human history. Human constructs, the lot of them, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, of course you would call it a human construct. Everything philosophical is a a human construct in your world view. None of it has any tangible existence outside of an individual human mind. Evil does not iobjectively exist. It is a construct of an individual human mind. Good does not objectively exist. It is a construct of an individual human mind. These concpets and their like companions are all just arbitrary frameworks constructed and deconstructed at will.

carl

11 July 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You talk as though that is a problem in itself. You simply have a personal preference for something else intangible which you'd like to assert instead. Horses for courses.

11 July 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger Nick said...

DanJ0, I don't think many Christians had to read some kind of "Which Religion" to decide whether to be Christian, Muslims, Buddhist, or whatever. It's nothing to do with making that kind of human judgement, just as Saul wasn't converted to Christianity by human argument. It's more to do with conviction by the Holy Spirit that a particular path is right and another isn't.

11 July 2013 at 17:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick, it's almost certainly to do with which religion one's parents follow if any for most people.

11 July 2013 at 17:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

You talk as though that is a problem in itself. You simply have a personal preference for something else intangible which you'd like to assert instead. Horses for courses.

This is not a statement of ojective fact. It is an assertion of materialist dogma. It is prefaced by the implicit presupposition: "Given that Philospohical Materialism is true..." A presupposition which of course I deny. And the authority behind your statement can never be greater than yourself. If you were consistent you would never speak of good and evil, right and wrong. It would be just as meaningful to label different actiions as 'red' and 'blue.'

But of course you do know that evil exists. You just can't explain it within the confines of philosophical materialism.

carl

11 July 2013 at 17:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

And the question to ask the atheist (your penultimate paragraph) in return is why we should go with HIS will rather than someone else's. When the wills of two atheists conflict, on what basis do we decide who to go with? Nietzsche's solution: war.

A lot to think about in your last sentence: in fact, I'm still thinking about it. It's sort of 'Euthyphro' territory: are things good because the gods command them, or do they command them because they're good? Even the second of those is problematic for a Christian because it makes God subject to something other than Himself.

11 July 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "This is not a statement of ojective fact. It is an assertion of materialist dogma. "

Yours is an assertion of a religionist dogma. Hey ho.

11 July 2013 at 18:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

The difference being that I freely admit my presuppositions. I don't hide behind illusions of compelled belief.

carl

11 July 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "But of course you do know that evil exists. You just can't explain it within the confines of philosophical materialism."

Actually, I don't know evil exists. I know what I think is wrong though and I can communicate that. I can also appeal to common experiences with others.

But anyway, back to the ECHR. It seems to me that something is wrong but I don't the whole thing is problematic. It's a bit like a Bill of Rights at the end of the day.

11 July 2013 at 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This man remembers the good old days. When the USSR could have at anytime sent the tanks rolling west from their side of the European iron curtain. Of course they didn’t, nor as we later found out, were they ever likely to or able to. When one Russian tank brigade commander cracked down on the wanton drunkenness of his command and stopped the vodka ration, the desperate troops drank the tanks dry of brake fluid. No more exercises for 10 days.

Anyway, the point is the USSR had a sobering effect on Western thought. The idea of an ECHR would have been unthinkable back then, because it already existed in the USSR. The Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, no less.

The Inspector suggests you all read the Wiki article. Look how closely that now dead monster resembles what has us under the heel.

Oddly enough, the Russians didn’t place great stock in the legislation of minor members of the Soviet Union.
Oddly enough, the ECHR doesn’t place great stock in the legislation of the free states of Europe.

There was no need, for the Supreme Soviet called the shots.
There is no need, for the ECHR knows it is more powerful than the legislation of the free states of Europe.

The Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union did the lot. It was the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union[1] and the only one with the power to pass constitutional amendments. It elected the Presidium, formed the Council of Ministers, the Supreme Court, and appointed the Procurator General of the USSR.
As for the ECHR, Europe is its oyster. It can only be a matter of time before the members who make up the EU version of the aforementioned institutions of state have to be confirmed as suitable by this living monster.

We are to be subject to the vagaries of man imagined rights as Dr Mullen informs us alright. And oaths will be sworn to these rights - God help us all…

11 July 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "The difference being that I freely admit my presuppositions. I don't hide behind illusions of compelled belief."

You're probably mistaking me for someone else, and possibly not even a real person too.

11 July 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Actually, I don't know evil exists.

Yes, you do. You know that certain things are always wrong despite the opinion of any given man. You know evil has objective existence well beyond your power to define it. You just can't say why.

I know what I think is wrong though and I can communicate that.

What you think is wrong is irrelevant since you lack any authority to establish your thinking. You are simply making a back-handed appeal to power.

You're probably mistaking me for someone else, and possibly not even a real person too.

No, I am not. Like all unbelievers you do not evaluate the evidence and disbelieve. You disbelieve and evaluate the evidence.

carl

11 July 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Law based on Judeo-Christian tradition is tried, trusted and proved. Your brave new world isn’t.

Please, no bullshit about religious atrocities from hundreds of years ago. Not in mood, you know...

11 July 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Yes, you do. You know that certain things are always wrong despite the opinion of any given man. You know evil has objective existence well beyond your power to define it. You just can't say why."

Thanks for that. I'm sure you think that's so anyway.

"What you think is wrong is irrelevant since you lack any authority to establish your thinking. You are simply making a back-handed appeal to power."

It seems to work for the rest of us at least as well as yours works for you. Of course, you lack the authority too other than the one you make up and assert is the authority you'd like to exist to back up your preferences. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop atrocities happening in the real world like in Egypt to Coptic Christians any more than it does to anyone else. But at least it makes you feel better in yourself I suppose.

"No, I am not. Like all unbelievers you do not evaluate the evidence and disbelieve. You disbelieve and evaluate the evidence."

You're very assertive today.

11 July 2013 at 19:04  
Blogger David Hussell said...

As my favourite Anglican bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali said not long ago, "Where would we be without The Ten Commandments?". It provides us with a solid base on which to build the rest of Judaeo-Christian morality.

Give me those certainties anytime before a political court. It will end in tears that court.

11 July 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But anyway, back to the ECHR. What should we put in its place? Should we just muddle through locally, hoping that Parliament will not be too flighty with our rights?

11 July 2013 at 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, But anyway, back to the ECHR. What should we put in its place?

Well, we could always return to rely on British common and statute law. Of course, that wouldn’t suit you. Have you noticed how loud you’ve been shouting lately ? That’s because you are somewhat on your own in this one, save for a few socialists on this site.


11 July 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Well, we could always return to rely on British common and statute law. Of course, that wouldn’t suit you."

You never did get back on the fact that the Human Rights Act is statue law here. Too busy sloping off perhaps, after realising that you didn't really know what you were talking about, as I recall.

11 July 2013 at 19:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, by the way, dear boy, the Inspector has stuck up for you. Well, he meant to, but he couldn’t be arsed at the time because it was you.

The gals who post on this site have you down as a rotter. (...Three cheers for women’s uncanny intuition, what !...) To wit, someone who spouts rot. And a foul mouthed one at that, who should be banned. Not so, says this man, although he can’t get you off the foul mouthed charge – a QC couldn’t.

You see, how could we recognise good on this site, (...That’s everybody except you, in case you didn’t realise it...) when we don’t have bad to compare it against. (...That’s you, no mistake about that...). One feels Cranmer is no too far away from opinion same.

Cheery pip !

11 July 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

It's sort of 'Euthyphro' territory: are things good because the gods command them, or do they command them because they're good? Even the second of those is problematic for a Christian because it makes God subject to something other than Himself.

I don't think the Euthyphro dilemma works against classical theism - it certainly doesn't work against Aquinas. The dilemma assumes pagan gods existing within a wider (and therefore prior) metaphysical framework. In classical theism God is the highest metaphysical framework.

Because of this, God creates from nothing - he is entirely responsible for the existence of all else that exists. Not just the form it takes but also the matter. Thus God can create things and order them towards certain goods or be reflective of certain goods - ultimately, himself. Having created in this way he has endowed creatures with certain goods (like being in his image) and to aim for certain goods (himself ultimately, as the supreme good). Thus God, if he is truthful (and as the first truth he is necessarily truthful - truth always speaks truly or there's nothing true - as Aquinas puts it), his commands will be bound to preserve and further those goods given in creation. But God is not therefore subject to something other than himself, for he is the cause of those goods - his will to command is, as it were, subject to his will to create what he has created.

Thus it seems to me Euthyphro fails: God is commanding what is true, but it is only true because it is what God has willed to create. There are other ways it fails too - to do with God's nature, his simplicity etc.

11 July 2013 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I note the direction you're trying to drag the thread and so I'll leave you to try to cause trouble with someone else.

11 July 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger Albert said...

This thing about whether human rights can exist without God is interesting me.

Let us take the following proposition:

It is always wrong to torture small children purely for fun.

Now is this proposition true? There are a range of possible world-views, some are religious, some are not. It seems to me that this statement cannot be true if naturalism/secularism is true, for the reasons I gave above @1539.

But that means that other propositions that might form the basis for human rights claims cannot be true either:

It is always wrong to kill innocent people on the grounds of their race.

It is always wrong to kill innocent people on the grounds of their religion.

It is always wrong to kill innocent people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

It is always wrong to kill innocent people on the grounds of their disability.


Now I don't think anyone would disagree with any of those propositions by choice. But what has happened is that people who have adopted a secular/naturalistic world-view have to disagree with them. In case anyone doubts it, here's Bertrand Russell:

“I find myself in a dilemma. On the one hand I certainly want to condemn the Nazi’s behaviour towards the Jews as wrong in itself. On the other hand, my ethical theory does not allow me to say this.”


But that makes no sense. I've shown I think, why those propositions can be true on theism (at least on Aquinas' Catholic view). So the obvious thing for the secularist is to drop the secularism and adopt some kind of religious world-view, so that he remains moral.

The failure of secularists to do this troubles me - why would someone adopt a world-view that cannot even subscribe to the most obvious and basic moral propositions? It's almost psychopathological. The trouble is, it is these amoralists (for that is what they are at heart) who are messing up society for the rest of us - all in the name of their own freedom.

It can't last though.

11 July 2013 at 20:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector &Danjo,

I Saw this and thought of both of you. The question is Inspector, are you getting your angry trousers and jumper on, against Alexander Danjolov ? (:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM

LOL! (:

11 July 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

Many thanks for that.

I agree that Euthyphro fails, because there cannot be anything higher than God. (It's a bit like the problem with pagan creation stories: the world made from pre-existing matter).

Addison said that the argument of 'Paradise Lost' is the simplest imaginable: that obedience to the will of God makes men happy, and disobedience makes them miserable. That pretty well sums it up for me: I've certainly found it true in my own life.

I'm signing off from this thread. Thank you for all the care that has gone into your responses.

Cordially.

11 July 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Quite - God being good only wills what is good, thus to follow his will is always what is good!

11 July 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Explorer,

Funnily enough, my cousin Louise is 'Paradise Lost' at the moment, as one of her summer essays is 'discuss Milton's "Paradise Lost" in relation to the Jewish faith'...

11 July 2013 at 20:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

’So statements about freedom and dignity are not statements of fact but aspirational. When the constitution of the ECtHR declares that everyone is born with a right to freedom and dignity, it does not thereby declare a fact’.

So, what we as a nation established as the European Charter of Human Rights is a commie conspiracy is it? There’s nothing really wrong with the biblical practise of slavery then? and Hitler wasn’t so bad because the Poles, Russians Gypsies and Jews were not really born free in the first place. Is this what is being said? What kind of nonsense is this?

Of course we are naturally born free;and it is a fact; but freedom comes in many forms until some person or organisation alters the fact. People have died in their millions to hold on to this notion. People have died for the cause of freedom and uphold their dignity. Anything less and you have Islam.

Is it any wonder the CoE is losing all credibility and being held up to ridicule when statements like this tumble from the mouths of so called theologians. There is no difference in what has been said here than on those banners held aloft by Islamic lunatics proclaiming ‘To Hell with Freedom’.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 echoes the spirit of Magna Carta when it states that:
,"the inherent dignity and ... the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

Some conspiracy!

No disagreement regarding the present situation that seemingly ignores ancient cultural legal differences and seeks to evolve some kind of one-fits-all hybrid notion of justice - What we have in Europe now is a travesty of the original intention and it is now nothing more than a legalistic quango, run and designed by lawyers, for the maximum benefit of lawyers. It badly needs reform and as one of the original draftees, but Britain needs to press home those reforms calmly home.

11 July 2013 at 21:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Hannah!

I've returned briefly to this thread just for you!

Peace-and-love Bob seems to have abandoned us. Never mind, we've still got DanJ0 and the Inspector.

Say hi to Louise for me. Great essay topic! Milton considered the Psalms the greatest poetry in the world. Quite something, for a man who'd read everything and could take his pick.

Must dash. Peace and love, Babe. (In case you're missing Bob).

11 July 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

the biblical practise of slavery then

Why do you call it the biblical practice? The whole of the pre-Christian world practised slavery! You're landing this uniquely on the Bible so as to undermine its authority. But in fact, if you look at biblical teaching on slavery it seeks to limit the harm of slavery (abolition being something no one thought possible at the time). We're not talking about the kind of stuff of the slave triangle or what secularists got up to in the 20th Century.

11 July 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger Peter D said...

so can we accept the following as a starting point:

"Whatever is contrary to an ordered love of God, neighbour, and self is morally evil; whatever is in accord with the same threefold love is morally good.

Love determines what is good and what is evil. Love separates good from evil. God is Love, by His very Nature; therefore, good and evil are determined by the Nature of God, who is Love and Justice and Truth."

(Ronald L. Conte Jnr)

11 July 2013 at 21:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

Well, 'Paradise Lost' will give me and cousin Louise*, something to think about when we are milking the cows, feeding the sheep, giving the cows their hay, cheeking on the wheat, barely, hops and seeing if our crocs have mated yet (uncle is convinced we have the 'only two queer crocodiles this side of the nile', lol!).

Shalom! As we say. And if I don't get to read your reply before Sabbath tomorrow, I shall leave you with our Lecha Dodi (Transliterated of course!):

'Let’s go, my beloved, to meet the bride,and let us welcome the presence of Shabbat.

"Keep" and "remember" - in a single utterance, the One and only G-d made us hear. G-d is One and G-d's Name is One, for renown, for splendor and for praise.'

*'Cousin' Louise is my Uncle's son's daughter... so my first cousin's daughter, which means we are 'once removed' or something(?!?).

11 July 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

Why do you call it the biblical practice?

According to the Bible, Abraham had slaves. The Ten Commandments, talk of "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant."

In the New Testament, Paul even returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, there is no record that Jesus never spoke out against it.

'Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ'.

This is why I mentioned the Bible.

11 July 2013 at 22:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You have to appreciate slavery as being of it’s time. Otherwise you are ignorant of history and thus an absolute thicko.

Is Bob still around ? With his peace and all that and just accept it all, he’d make an excellent slave. The Inspector would like to buy him. Anyone know who owns him ?



11 July 2013 at 23:12  
Blogger Peter D said...

There wasn't enough "love in the room" for Bob, Inspector.

I know you're not too fond of orthodox Catholic teaching, but Vatican II affirmed, without qualification, that slavery was an "infamy" that dishonoured the Creator and was a poison in society.

So leave Bob alone!

(Interesting history of Christian theology and practice regarding slaves. Well worth a read on Wiki.)

12 July 2013 at 00:04  
Blogger Nick said...

Inspector

I think you'll find slavery is still rife in this country. One only has to look at photos of the gay "pride" rally to see that many are still in bondage.

12 July 2013 at 00:39  
Blogger Derek said...

That was an unfortunate choice of words...

12 July 2013 at 02:58  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

England, the European Union should be so below you. What enormous law this commie, one-world, secular behemoth on stilts wields. The heck with murderers... And the heck with Free Masonry.

12 July 2013 at 03:40  
Blogger Manfarang said...

'Human rights' has become a tool used by criminals as a cynical ''get out of jail card' or a 'lever' to manipulate the legal system.

There may be human right issues concerning the penal system but human rights do not stop there.
Destoy human rights and the freedom of religion will be destroyed.

12 July 2013 at 04:45  
Blogger LEN said...

It is not 'human rights' which are the problem but the the misuse of the 'Human rights system' which was originally instigated for the protection of people under inhumane political systems.

That is why an urgent review of the whole Human Rights system is needed.

'Human rights' don`t seem to work in the very places where they are needed most.Islamic Countries for example and some people want sharia law in the UK!.

12 July 2013 at 08:53  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len,

Human Rights, which were instigated for noble reasons to provide a basic minimum of decent treatment of vulnerable people under, as you say, inhumane political systems, has been twisted and distorted into its currently grotesque form. It is now used as a defense of the indefensible, thus frustrating justice.
This points so powerfully to the central tenet of Christianity, namely our need for guidance from a higher power, God. Humanity left to its own devices corrupts everything it touches.
The more plodding, modest and pragmatic approach of English Common Law, incrementally evolved using the wisdom of previous generations, and based loosely on Biblical standards, provided a far more satisfactory form of justice. Legal schemes based on any Utopianism are doomed to failure, but with tyranny as its temporary product.
We must exit from this haughty Franco-German intellectual failed nonsense.

12 July 2013 at 09:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hannah @ 22.10

"Ambiguous between sea and land,
The river horse, and scaly crocodile." (P. L. VII: 473, 474).

Still trying to work out if Milton said anything I can quote equivalent to your relation to Louise.

Regards.

12 July 2013 at 09:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len:

As David says, spot on with the original motives for Human Rights.

They seem to have been subsequently hijacked by PC.

PC betrays its Marxist origins when it deals in abstract generalities - victims and oppressors - rather than seeing people as individuals.

Thus all in the victim class must be good, and all in the oppressor class must be bad: when what is needed is a look at actual individuals.

I find it telling that when Marx was given an opportunity to go down a mine, or visit an actual factory, he declined.

He preferred to read about them in the British Museum.

12 July 2013 at 09:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Your response @2241 fails to address the point I made.

12 July 2013 at 09:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

(I'm back: for a statement of the obvious).

Absolutely!

Dreadnaught, consider Aristotle's view of slavery. Think about the Pyramids, the Gardens of Babylon, the Janissaries, and the guards in the Topkapi Harem.

You do, of course, have a point about the Bible. Southern slaveowners used the Old Testament to justify slavery, and abolitionists used the New Testament to decry it.

12 July 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The point is; that Albert's question over my minor comment which in hindsight was badly phrased, and has nothing to do with the original post which is about ECHR and nothing to do with Slavery per se. There were many other points I raised that he could have taken issue with, none of which have been addressed; obviously he is more concerned with matters more metaphysically closer to his heart than the distortion of European Charter of Human Rights.

12 July 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer,

That's interesting, Marx declining to visit a mine or factory. He set a pattern for the left, of the intellectual variety, who prefer theory over facts or reality.

Excuse this little digression.

There aren't many mines open now in the UK, not real working ones, only sanitized museum ones. I do recommend a visit to a genuine one if you can. I did all mine in the days before extreme H and S and it was great fun jumping on conveyer belts, hurtling towards the coal face miles away, with a distinct bump as you passed over each roller, leaping off at the end and then a trudge to the working face. Just like the equally fun paternoster lifts, they've been banned as well. Bloody spoil sports these lefties !

12 July 2013 at 10:45  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David/ Dreadnaught:

David: There's an interesting anecdote in 'To the Finland Station' about Marx's reaction to an actual worker (with a knee damaged from time in prison for political radicalism) he encountered. What do you know about anything? You're only a worker. Me, I know: I've got a doctorate.

Dreadnaught:

Fair comment. Apologies.

12 July 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Is Bob still around ? With his peace and all that and just accept it all, he’d make an excellent slave. The Inspector would like to buy him. Anyone know who owns him ? (Inspector General)

I do. He's yours for the asking. Comes with his own yoga mat, beads and a year's supply of celery juice. Please, please take him now.

12 July 2013 at 11:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

There were many other points I raised that he could have taken issue with, none of which have been addressed; obviously he is more concerned with matters more metaphysically closer to his heart than the distortion of European Charter of Human Rights.

I picked up on the slavery thing because I agreed with everything else you said (I think)! My purpose in talking about metaphysics is so that we properly ground our recognition of human rights. If we don't then we either promulgate bogus human rights (which necessarily therefore violate real human rights) or we just let real human rights disappear.

The willingness of the West to overthrow its Christian moral heritage without having anything to replace it is irrational and foolish in the extreme - and we have seen its fruits pretty consistently since the Terror following the French Revolution. Observing that not everything was perfect in the Bible, is hardly an excuse.

12 July 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert,

Hear , hear !

Unless one is a total conspiracy theorist, I think that the west is adrift, propelled, lurching may be a better way to describe its trajectory, towards an unknown and uncertain future. The "isms', feminism, individualism, consumerism and so called sexual liberation politics are the signposts towards which the vote grabbing politicians steer us, but without having any overall route map at their disposal, I believe.

Perhaps cultural Marxism is the framework provider, but are there any masterminds, or just bunches of organized in the protest groups people rejecting God ?

Poly marriage may be the next signpost, or Open Marriages, and beyond that I hate to think, pedastry ?. Too many so called Christians in all the churches allow themselves to act as , " willing fools" , which is an indictment of the Church's failure to teach and proclaim the Gospel.

12 July 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, slavery is rightly frowned upon in these modern times, but in centuries past, it saved millions of lives. Here’s how that worked. Two peoples go to war with each other. One triumphs. What to do with the defeated. Well, you could let them go, but they would no doubt spend the rest of their days plotting revenge (not a good idea). Or, you could kill the lot, as the OT tells us the Jews did on occasion (bad idea). That would prevent revenge alright. But better still, you could enslave them and even sell them on. In other words, use them for labour and as property and they get to live.

Avi. Am awaiting delivery by post of new obedience collar for Bob. Then will put him to work as a punkah wallah. Hope he likes rice and cabbage, as he will be getting nowt else. He can sleep in the kitchen.



12 July 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

No need to apologise Mr Explorer no offence taken,it is after all the right of all people to excercise the freedom to speak our mind (right, wrong, or deemed by some, blasphemously offensive)is indeed a human right.

Albert let me be clear, I am a moral (at least I try to be in the temporal sense) atheist and opposed to all theocratic influence and privileges in politics. If MPs wish to have prayers in the House then I'm fine with that and would prefer that a suitable time should be set aside before daily sitting commences.

In no way see my position as being in accord with excesses of The Terror in 18C France.

12 July 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

"...but Vatican II affirmed, without qualification, that slavery was an "infamy" that dishonoured the Creator and was a poison in society." (Peter D)

Really, like, for all time? Because slavery was practiced by all, including the Church. That would condemn many saints and Church leaders of yours, so I imagine catechism would have some explanation about the fact that this is an "evolved" position, rather than one applicable to all times. Not a point of contention...just wondering if you know more about this.

Many will not like this, but while we can afford to reject slavery today, certain conditions appear to require it and the Bible of course permits it, but with clear instructions on the treatment of slaves and their rights, with rights and obligations for the owner and affirming the personhood of the slave. Custom, as described in the Talmud and I imagine in Church laws, brought leniencies as well. In many respects, ancient slavery differs only academically from other forms of tying people's lives up, such as bondsmanship, contracted labour, taxation, and all sorts of obligations to the state such as military service.

For the atheist and left-wingnuts out there who think they are superior to us religious freaks because they say or think that they don't believe in slavery, the Biblical "human rights" pronouncements are still the only immutable body of such rights anywhere and anytime. On the other hand Pagans, including secular versions thereof...like yourselves... have shown time and time again that expediency and fashion govern whether people are treated as noble workers or racial gods, or as robots and trash to be used, worked to death and turned into soap and fertilizer. So, suck on that lollipop.

Inspector, Bob's all yours now, of course, but if you want my advice, replace cabbage with quinoa, einkorn, unicorn pooh or whatever the latest cheap foodie fad is. The guy before him went to light a smoke in the outhouse and well, that's how I wound up with Bob.... PS Can't get into Gmail for a few days as I left my old laptop with the new pass codes at a friends'.

12 July 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. A most comprehensive dissertation on slavery, that man. Yet the lefties will never accept it. But then, to be a lefty is to totally ignore the valuable lessons history has given mankind today, and merely to wallow in the childlike sentiment of “It’s not fair”. By letting go of their mother’s skirt, they collapse undignified on the ground of imagined equality.



12 July 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Avi

I'm not an expert on the theology of slavery, its twists and turns, but do know there have been different positions on it since the early church. These have been based on different interpretations of the Bible and the application of theological reasoning to understand God and Him making us in His image. As you rightly say, person-hood was a central issue.

Based on Aquinas, the Catholic Church came to accept certain types of slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition but teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly.

Indeed, you are right, Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves. The naval galleys of the Papal States used captured Muslim galley slaves. (I wonder what the Inspector thinks of that!)

I understand (from Wiki - so not sure how reliable) the first extensive shipment of black Africans (4000), in what would later become known as the Transatlantic Slave Trade, was initiated at the request of Bishop Las Casas and authorised by Charles V in 1517. Historians dispute this but the Bishop, it seems, regretted it towards the end of his life and included an apology in his History of the Indies.

12 July 2013 at 23:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 July 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Language and interpretation has a lot of relevance in this debate: we can perhaps agree that those drafting the Declaration of Human Rights were noble in their intentions, but then so much as been interpreted and reinterpreted, in much the same way that the Bible has been. We can read Orwell's 1984 and see how the systematic corruption of language was engineered to create an unthinking and blinkered society, and many would argue that political correctness does something similar. Equality, which once meant equality before the law, now means a levelling down (would that it meant a levelling up but there you go). The most interesting moral question raised for me is whether the human rights of the murderer trump the rights of the victim...I shall ring for tea and ponder...

13 July 2013 at 12:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older