Human Wrongs II

The more I look into this Human Rights racket the more worried I become.

Have a guess, according to the UN, as to which countries are the top 5 Human Rights violators?

Here is a helpful table I drew up, just in case you thought of these ones:

Country	UN Global “Human Rights Violators” Ranking	A brief example of how life and human liberty are cherished
China	11	"in the past, capital punishment was carried out by a single shot to the back of the head at execution fields outside Chinese cities and families of the dead were sent a bill for the bullet" (click on the link for the amazing progress they've made.)
Pakistan	23	where they wire up babies to kill political candidates
Saudi Arabia	29	where women still aren't allowed to drive,and a women's testimony in court is worth half that of a man's testimony
Iran	16	where they torture students,children are eligible for capital punishment,and they arrest men & women for looking “too western”

Source: http://www.eyeontheun.org/browse-un.asp?ya=1&ua=1&sa=1&tpa=1 (viewed on 14/5/08)

No, according to the UN, the most egregious violator of human rights, in the world, is of course Israel (#1), followed by Sudan (#2)... ok I'll give them that one, Democratic Republic of Congo (#3), Myanmar (#4), and the United States (#5)...hmmm.

If anything should convince you of the irrelevance of the UN, it should be those figures. How an institution can condemn:

a. the only country in the Middle East where gays aren't put to death for being gay, and
b. the only functioning democracy in that region

is, to put it nicely, “intellectually dishonest” or as I put it in an earlier draft, “fucking ridiculous.”

Of course it's obvious to everyone that even if all the 'orrible-guards-flushed-my-Quran-down-the-dunny-@-Gitmo stories are true, that the US is by far the worst in terms of Human Rights violations. Seriously though, for hosting the UN in New York, they are responsible for any and all influence the UN have in the world, which thankfully, is not that much (see #2 Sudan for details).

Most of the resolutions, condemnations and other UN “Human Rights Actions” aren't worth the paper they're printed on and have as much chance of being listened to or implemented as I have of convincing my university lecturers that the evidence of Global Warming is “a bit shaky”.

Here is the 1st paragraph of “What we do” from the UN Human Rights - Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right web page. Additions by me in red to “reframe” the statement as it is carried out in practice.

“What we do

As the principal United Nations office mandated to promote and protect human rights for all (except for Israel), OHCHR leads global human rights efforts speaks out objectively (except in the case of Israel and the USA) in the face of human rights violations worldwide (or just in Israel and the USA). We provide a forum for identifying, highlighting and developing responses to today's human rights challenges (in Israel and the USA), and act as the principal focal point of human rights research, education, public information, and advocacy activities in the United Nations system.“
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/WhatWeDo.aspx

And now for Mokbel . I half joked about them trying to, but sometimes life hands you the punch line:

“Lawyers also took Mokbels case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and requested they halt any move to have their client returned to face justice in Melbourne.”

Justice in Greece vs Justice in Melbourne

I can almost see his point....

Human Wrongs

Human Rights Agencies and their associated courts, tribunals and legislative institutions are totalitarian agencies which if not curbed, will be responsible the worse tyranny civilisation has ever seen. Dramatic? Yes. Unrealistic? I wish.

One might be mistaken thinking that “Human Rights” were invented by the UN Universal Declaration of human rights in 1948, however the process was started way earlier with the Magna Carta , in England in the 13th century. This document recognised the rights of citizens and restricted the the will of the king (King John, the bad guy in the Robin Hood stories). It led to what is now known as "constitutional law".

Along with the separation of church and state (1300-1700ish), the US Bill of Rights (1789), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833), you can see an evolution of individual liberty and human emancipation. You'll note the distinctive West-centric aspect of this process. As much as the media, apologists, useful idiots, etc etc would have us believe, there is no equivalent focus on individual rights in any other civilisation. None. Not a sausage. Bugger all.

This is not to denigrate the achievements of other civilisations, but to emphasise that the evolution of individual rights is something that is unique to Western Civilisation. This reason is one of the many reasons why I believe the West is Best^TM.

The current state of the West's obsession with the individual has given birth to something monstrous known as Human Rights Commissions. Yes yes, they were started with the “best of intentions”, but as my good friend St Bernard of Clairvaux says, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Human Rights Commisions, which as of this year, Victoria now has one, are ideally there to ensure equal rights of all citizens against various forms of discrimination. You know the usual cardinal sins; discrimination of age, disability, race, sex, breastfeeding.

Why these issues can not be resolved in common law, or through the normal courts is beyond me.

With the news that Tony Mokbel is now considering appealing to the EU Human Rights Tribunal to prevent his extradition to Australia, you have got to wonder if the Human Rights thing has not gone too far. To think that a convicted criminal thinks he can appeal against extradition to Australia (Australia!?!!), that somehow being forced to go back to this country (the country he ran away from to escape prosecution) is infringing on his human rights to...what...live the life of a rich fugitive overseas? F... you Mr Mokbel. As an aside I hope all your paranoid ravings turn out to be true.

In Canada, they've had Human Rights Commissions for some time. In fact they love the idea so much, that in addition to a federal Human Rights Commission (The Canadian Human Rights Commission – CHRC), they have one for almost each region: Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Manitoba Human Rights Commission, New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, Newfoundland Human Rights Commission, Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission, Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission, Québec - Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Yukon Human Rights Commission...i think that's all of them.

That's a lot of oppressed Canadians!

The major problem with these undemocratic institutions, is that anyone can submit a complaint that their human rights are being infringed and these helpful bodies, do all the leg work at no cost to the complainant, and all cost to the tax-payer, and then they force the defendant to defend themselves at huge legal cost to him or herself, where they usually find them guilty. There are none of the provisions of common law that have been in place for centuries, such as the presumption of innocence, checks and balances on prosecutorial misconduct, separation of Judge, Jury and Prosecutor.

A sample of the Human Rights being Wronged in Canada:

• Restaurant Owner vs Medically prescribed Marijuana smoker. (was asked to smoke his joint somewhere else other than the doorstep of the restaurant, so restauranteur was charged with infringing the smokers human rights. Will probably go bankrupt as a result)

• Transgender Labiaplasty seeker vs Plastic Surgeon (Plastic surgeon refused to perform labiaplasty on two post-op transexuals, for the pretty good reason that men are biologically different “down there” than women, even after a sex-change operation, and would not perform the procedure because of risk to the patients)

• Bipolar employee vs Artillery testing software company (Employee with history of bipolar illness advises employer of potential 'manic' episodes if placed under stress. Works 8 days before going off the deep end. Employer dismisses employee without prejudice within 90 day probation period. Company gets sued by said employee and he walks away with $80,000..yes I know they're Canadian dollars, but still)

A major issue winding it's way through various semi-judicial bodies right now, is the right for private magazines to publish what they want. Free speech is a right we take for granted in Australia as we have no express provisions for that right. These Human Rights Tribunals are now taking two major magazines (one now defunct) to task for a: publishing the dreaded Mohammed cartoons. and b: quoting a Norwegian imam. Link here.

Critically, it is about the use of government bodies by blatant Islamist freaks to silence opinions they do not like. And if you don't think that those tactics haven't been noticed by similar types across the world and that one day such an issue could not possibly end up in Victorian Human Rights star chambers...I mean tribunals....watch this space....

An Inconvenient Hoax

Hot on the heels of the news that it has snowed recently in Baghdad, I would like to state unequivocally that

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax.

It is the biggest hoax of this century. It is a political idea with a dash of religion and a smattering of science. And as political ideas go, it is second only to one of the worst political ideas in history: Communism. And unfortunately they are not too far removed from each other.

The earth may very well be warming (or cooling). In fact it may surprise you to know that for as long as there has been a planet called Earth, the temperature on it has been constantly changing. Geologists, climatologists and other-gists who look at the weather and have examined the historical record, agree that the climate on earth is either warming - coming out of an ice age, or cooling - going into an ice age. This cycle of weather has been repeating itself for billions of years. There are smaller cycles (1,500 yrs) inside larger cycles(23,000yrs, 41,000yrs, 100,000yrs). There are probably many more that we are unaware of. The last ice age was around 1600s where large parts of Europe froze over. It is known as the Little Ice Age.

Here's a couple of common arguments I hear constantly about this issue:

A hotter earth is going to mean millions more dead people.
(THE SCORCHED EARTH ARGUMENT)
More people die of cold each year than heat. A slightly warmer earth therefore will result in less people dying, all other things being equal. A slightly warmer earth will also benefit plants and will result in increased crop yields, which means more food.

The melting polar caps will cause a rise in sea levels will flood populated cities.
(THE DROWNING POLAR BEAR ARGUMENT)
The amount of heat energy required to melt the ice-caps enough for a 20ft sea level rise that the most estimable Nobel Laureate and Academy Award™ winner Al Gore constantly bangs on about, is roughly 300 times the amount of heat energy the earth receives in one year. Of course, Mr Gore declines to mention over what time period this 20ft sea level rise is supposed to happen.

Thousands of scientists, academics, and politicians agree that Global Warming is happening.
(THE CONSENSUS ARGUMENT)
This is perhaps the weakest argument put forward as evidence of the Warming. Which is why it used the most often, and with the shrillest of voices. Just because lots of individuals believe in an idea, doesn't make it true. Remember, most academics, learned individuals and politicians in the 1400s believed the earth was flat. Millions of people voted the for the Nazi's. All physicians used to believe that bleeding patients was a way to cure them. Religion.

History is littered with bad ideas that lots of people believed in until something else came along. Einstein once said that to defeat his theory of relativity, “one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

Why CO₂?

Out of every toxic thing that humans produce, pollute and otherwise rape the planet with, why would every brave 'Cassandra' warning us of this impending doooom, focus on a gas that:

-that the planet produces naturally (via the sea, plants, volcanoes, etc...)
-that pretty much every living thing either produces whether it's alive or dead
-that we humans produce when we breathe out

Clear your mind for a moment of the usual talking points you may have read in The Age, the BBC or seen on TV and think why would every policy focus on CO₂, a naturally occurring gas, the mechanics of which (the Carbon Cycle) we don't really understand?

There is only one reason I can think of: CO₂ is a marker for economic development.

There is a direct relationship between the level of economic development and level of CO₂ produced. Quite simply, if a country has a lot of factories and industries, a lot of CO₂ is produced. It doesn't matter which country, culture or even which industries. Put another way, the CO₂ output Zimbabwe is less than the CO₂ output of Australia.

If the powers that be focused on a toxic gas/element that could also be a by-product of any specific industrial activity, you would not be able to compare it effectively across countries as different composition of industries cause different types of damage and pollution.

ie. Arsenic. This is a toxic chemical which is poisonous to humans and the environment. Spills of arsenic can cause incredible environmental devastation. It is also a by-product of several industrial processes, one of which is the mining of gold. For example the arsenic output (read: pollution) of Chile (a large gold producing, 'developing' country) is larger than the arsenic output of France (much less gold, much more 'developed' country).

So if we accept that CO₂ can be used as a marker for economic development, and all global warming, climate change policies laws, etc attempt to restrict the output of CO₂, or in other words, the “State” is attempting to have total control over the output of industry. This now begs the question what other political idea attempted total control over the output of all industry?

And here's the biggest piece of evidence that those perpetrating the hoax are now aware that most people are waking up to the fact that this is a big steaming load of CO₂ emitting BS: If you look closely at all the articles coming out now about the phenomenon formerly known as Global Warming, you'll note that they are now using the much more easy to digest title of “Climate Change”.

Climate Change? Wow, there's naturally occurring phenomenon that requires heaps of our tax money and a bunch of Trans-national regulatory bodies. I mean it's not like there been “Climate Change” on earth before...oh wait a minute.

None of the preceding arguments is not to say we shouldn't do anything and keep polluting. There are many essential reasons we should be thinking more environmentally, getting off fossil fuels, using renewable energy, etc etc etc. However, the main (read: only) focus of any policy to do with The Warming focuses solely on CO₂ output. First it's banning incandescent light bulbs, then the power company will want to control your air-conditioner, then it will be taxes for couples who wish to have babies, and then you won't be allowed air-travel, all in the name of reducing a naturally occurring gas.

And if power companies are going to be penalised taxed on the amount of CO₂ they produce, where exactly do you think these costs are going to end up? And do you think it will stop with your power bill? Anyone want to give me an example of ANYTHING that you use/wear/drive/eat/whatever that does not at some point, involve electricity and a power company? Do you think the relative prices of those things will stay the same?

It might surprise you to know that Al Gore and his ilk are shareholders in companies that are placed to profit from Carbon Credit trading, an entirely artificial market created to make money without having to produce anything.

And if CO₂ is bad, then we should be doing things to reduce it. Period. Not create artificial markets, which simply offsets the responsibility of CO₂ output to another country, which by it's very structure is completely open to abuse, and also increases the likelihood of other, more pernicious pollutants being used instead.

It's the Earth mMother of all Hoaxes.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is one of the most evil and poisonous concepts to have ever been introduced into public discourse. It forgives atrocities committed by individuals, institutions and governments in the name of "tolerance". It is a tool devised specifically to stop discussion of certain issues from one, and only one, perspective.

The dictionary definition of cultural relativism is the belief that all points of view are equally valid and should be evaluated relative to the observer's culture. In practice, this idea which has been adopted wholesale by western academics, teachers, politicians, and the media, is used to prevent discussion and debate on particular topics. You will only ever hear it used in the context to criticise a “Western” point of view vis a vis particular issues. You will never hear of say, a Saudi responding to a Somali complaint about the cruelty of camel racing, that the he couldn't possibly understand the cultural context and vibrant tradition of kidnapping children and forcing them to race camels for the benefit of the rich.

Example #1: Fundamentalist Christians are as intolerant of gays as Fundamentalist Muslims

Because we live in a society that is founded broadly on Judeo-Christian values, many people attempt liken the mistreatment of gays in our society to the mistreatment of gays in say...Iran. Undeniably, homosexuals have had a hard time throughout the ages in Christian societies (I'm sure it wasn't a party in other cultures either), and the gay rights movement has done much to reverse some of the wrongs, as the women's rights movement before it. Of course there are parts in the West where being gay is still not accepted (like maybe Utah in the US and possibly Bairnsdale in rural Victoria), however as a rule, gays enjoy all the freedoms any other individual enjoys in a free society, as they should.

Recently, I had a discussion with a friend about a mutual gay friend of ours who had claimed in certain parts of Melbourne, he had been made to feel "uncomfortable" because he was gay. Because of the Judeo-Christian link to our society, the view was then put forward that because Christians following the letter of the Bible, cannot tolerate homosexuals, then ipso-facto, cultural-relativo, our society was as bad as Iran's on the treatment of gays.

This is what happens to gay men in Melbourne:

This is what happens to gay men in Tehran. (WARNING GRAPHIC PICTURE)

The difference here, is not so much what is written in people's respective religious texts, it is the current day practice of said religions.

Example #2: FGM or Female Genital Mutilation (aka Female circumcision)

In many backwater third world countries, this 'procedure' is carried out on pre-pubescent girls (if they're 'lucky') or as an adult if they had manage to escape it first time round. It involves removing the clitoris and labia without anesthetic. The victim (sorry that's my western point of view, I meant to say “the girl”) is usually held down by her mother and other female relatives whilst a 'doctor' performs the operation.

This procedure is not 'allegedly' unique to any religious creed and most common in Africa. The idea behind this barbaric custom is that it ensures the woman's chastity until she is married, family honour, blah blah a bunch of other misogynistic platitudes. It also ensures that the woman will probably never enjoy sex.

This is an abominable and barbaric custom that any individual with an ounce of human compassion should actively denounce. It is child abuse at it's most depraved and a grave injustice committed against women.

You would think that our medical establishment would be at the forefront championing women's rights here and in the 3rd world against this custom, wouldn't you? In order to get the official take on this, I went to the website of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/), and I downloaded the FGM Booklet (available here).

I didn't need to go further than the preface (page 6):

"One of the challenges has been to balance the issues relevant to the transcendence of cultural boundaries. Writing from within our culture about those of others, we are aware of the potential to be ethnocentric in our approach."

Be wary of any document bearing the words "transcendence of cultural boundaries".

Imagine the worldwide chaos and negative impact on our GDP if the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists were to make an official statement against "Dr Umbutu" from Sudan and his monstrous practice. Evidently the imagined evil of being "ethnocentric" outweighs the very real evil of child abuse.

The very next sentence is the silver platter:

"However, in avoiding this bias we need also to avoid lending support to the cultural relativist view that allows cultural self-determination even when the violation of human rights is evident to others."

"in avoiding this bias"??? Why is this bias to be avoided?!? A bias against FGM is a very healthy thing for individuals and societies. Way to go standing up for the sisterhood there, docs.

Example #3: John Howard is as bad as Robert Mugabe

This year, the chief of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, in the foreword of the Amnesty international 2007 report, she singled out the four of the biggest human rights violators in the last year. In order, John Howard, George W Bush, Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe).

Below is the paragraph in question (page 2 of the foreword)

“The Howard government portrayed desperate asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to Australia’s national security and raised a false alarm of a refugee invasion. This contributed to its election victory in 2001. After the attacks of 11 September 2001, US President George W Bush invoked the fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power, without Congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan whipped up fear among his supporters and in the Arab world that the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur would be a pretext for an Iraq-style, US-led invasion. Meanwhile, his armed forces and militia allies continued to kill, rape and plunder with impunity. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe played on racial fears to push his own political agenda of grabbing land for his supporters.”

This (and this) is what happens to the political opposition of Robert Mugabe,

This is what happens to the political opposition of John Howard.

This is what is currently happening to protesters in Bangladesh (where the esteemed Irene Khan was born)

Melbourne or Darfur? I can't tell the difference, and neither can Amnesty International

The thing with cultural relativity is that it it is ultimately a contradictory position. Philosophically stated, if cultural relativism is true, and all points of view are equally valid, then the “point of view” that cultural relativism is false, is true. Confused yet? Well that's because reason and logic have very little to do with cultural relativism.

If all cultures are equal, why is western culture uniquely bad?