Burka Barbie

From the Daily Mail:

"One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children."

So to follow the thinking of the designers of Barbie's 50th Anniversary collection, let's dress up Barbie in clothes that represent the most misogynistic and oppressive political ideas, and then sell it at a charity to help the children.

'I know Barbie was something seen as bad before as an image for girls, but in actual fact the message with Barbie for women is you can be whatever you want to be.'

progress...

Why the burka is so objectionable is explained by Mark Steyn

"The burka, the niqab and the hijab are not fashion statements but explicitly political ones, and what they symbolize in a Western context is self-segregation."

On a supposedly unrelated note, Obama's "Safe School Czar" has a recommended reading list of books for children of all grades. Some of the books

weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers...

The point being that whilst the existence of both the toy and the books aren't necessarily too disturbing in and of themselves, but the values they are promoting to children are perhaps not the ones we as society should be.

I wonder what little girls in Afghanistan think of the Barbie...

Making the world safer?

As I previously wrote, there are ramifications regarding the US Attorney General prosecutions of CIA interrogators that will flow far from the borders of the United States. This is not about torture or righting wrongs, this is a vindictive partisan bloodletting, pure and simple.

And here I was believing that The One was going to help us evolve past these petty political urges (you know how he was going to get us "beyond politics"). These actions taken by the Obama administration are going to endanger the US and the West. And whilst The One will do the merry tap-dance to distance himself from the prosecutions, it is highly improbable that the Attorney General would be doing this without the explicit consent and encouragement from the Commander-in-Chief.

Reprising his take on this, Thomas Sowell has an excellent breakdown of what this will mean for the US...and the rest of us:

"Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi-- the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people-- is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time."

Speaking of the ongoing hand-wringing and outright creation of "rights" for those I would term "barbaric animals":

"So many "rights" have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you." (emphasis mine)

Read it all.

ANZAC regrets

On this ANZAC day, where Aussies and Kiwis commemorate the deaths of thousands of soldiers who fought in wars to keep Australia free and the idea of a liberal democracy alive in this lonely corner of the planet, I came across this news and was depressed at how far some Aussies have travelled into the La-La land of ideological madness.

AUSTRALIA'S Race Discrimination Commissioner Tom Calma is attending the controversial UN anti-racism conference in Geneva, despite the Rudd Government's decision to boycott the event because of fears it would become a platform to attack Israel.

The idea that an indigenous "Race Discrimination Commissioner" needs to go to a conference which last time resolved after a couple of weeks of junket deliberation that the only country worthy of racist policies was Israel, is some sort of wacky.

Mr Tom Calma (picture source)

The actual criticism is in point 63 of the Durban declaration (document available here):

63. We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;

Whilst it's not entirely comparing Israel with Germany circa 1939 (the benchmark of evil), it is curious that in the entire 62 page document, Israel is the only nation that gets a special mention. What this anti-semitic conference will teach the indigenous "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner" (to use his full title) is beyond me and even the Rudd government. The US, Canada, Israel and Australia have all officially boycotted this farce of a conference (as if a UN conference is anything but) yet Mr Calma insists on going.

I'm sure the OIC delegation will have much to teach an indigenous Australian about racism...

Human Wrongs III - The junkie edition

Actual headline from the Daily Mail:

"Drug addicted prisoners receive compensation for being forced to go cold turkey."


From the article:

"Around £11,400 was paid to three inmates at Winchester Prison in Hampshire after a court ruled that it was a breach of their human rights to deny them drugs such as heroin and substitute substances."

Seriously, WTF? These guys are in PRISON. It's not supposed to be a !@#ing cakewalk. It's supposed to be unpleasant. That's what prison is. Most law abiding citizens of any country get that.

"Really sorry Snake, but you're not supposed to be taking heroin or any other illegal drug whilst your doing time. You want to do drugs? THEN STAY OUT OF JAIL YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!"

The revolution will come, but not as neo/crypto Marxists believe. It won't be lefty sympathising 'underclasses' rising up against the White Male Patriarchy. It will be lynch mobs of outraged citizens with pitchforks and torches wanting to take the frankenstein monster of activist judiciaries to task for yet another outrageous judgement.

"Human Rights" my ass.....

As previously banned on YouTube

Earlier this year, the Head of the Church of England (Dr Rowan Williams) made some ridiculous remarks about the introduction of Sharia in Britain. Clearly he and his Lord Chief Justice comrade could see which way the wind is blowing (as I mentioned in my post here)

Apparently Sharia law is now in full effect in Britain (at least to those willing to submit to it).

About a month behind the 8-ball, I have caught up on the minor controversy that our good friend Pat Condell created when one of his videos was banned after criticising the Saudis, Saudi Arabia and Islam (you know, the usual things he complains about). After a concerted campaign from his supporters, his video was reinstated.

Enjoy the video you were almost not allowed to see....

Human Rights will be the death of us

This column in the Wall Street Journal (via Melanie Phillips) is an interesting look at the difficulties of prosecuting ye pirates, giving it proper historical context.

The column raises the interesting issue of extra-judicial trials, especially in the light of similar arrangements re: fighting 'unlawful' combatants (read: The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, other scary bearded groups, etc...) and the difficulties of prosecution and incarceration. With the news that President-elect Obama will probably close down Guantanemo, with the probable consequence of bringing the lovable and peaceful huggy-bears that are currently residing there into the US Civil court system.

This poses many problems, principally that of what do you do with them once they've "served their time". Deport them to their countries of origin? Western countries have a certain squeamishness about sending the bad guys back where they came from should their home countries infringe on their 'Human Rights' such as their right to keep breathing.

From the Wall Street Journal column

"Last April the British Foreign Office reportedly warned the Royal Navy not to detain pirates, since this might violate their "human rights" and could even lead to claims of asylum in Britain."

Nothing clearly shows the decline of the West more than that paragraph.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated the idea of The Social Contract* in 1762, in that citizens of a nation, by virtue of being born there, entered into a social covenant (or contract) with society. The imperialism of the West, much like the imperialism of the Romans before it, understood this and promoted this. Ie that the societies held certain commnon values. The reason why they did this is that they felt their values were worthy. In the example of Britain and the West, principally it was the idea of individual human dignity.

Warning: Dead White Male ( picture source)

Rousseau's Contract was a notion that sought to bring together the common will, as laws were " the conditions on which civil society exist." and

"The right of laying down the rules of society belong only to those that form the society"

This is something that every individual, no matter which civilization or ethnic group they belong to understands implicitly. You could argue that International Law, if an extension of Rousseau's idea means that we are all "citizens of world" and that we are all bound by the same laws, thus everything from unrestricted immigration to tolerance of intolerable practices should prevent (mostly) Western countries from exercising their power to restrict immigration or prosecute unlawful combatants that do not follow the commonly understood laws of war (or Geneva Convention). Rousseau however has a rejoinder to this situation:

"There is undoubtedly a universal justice which springs from reason alone, but if that justice is to be acknowledge as such it must be reciprocal"

Therein lies to the answer to the hysterical lefties who protest the injustice(s) of Guantanemo, the US Army and supporters of David Hicks.

"Guantanamo is a terrible place where you get several helpings of torture a day with generous sides of beatings and it is all so injust as you are only an innocent goat-herder? How about the injustice visited of these Taliban prisoners (WARNING: Pictures of dead bodies) ? Are there reciprocal cries of injustice from the same groups?

[chirp-chirp]


To be continued....

*quoting from Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762) "The Social Contract", published by Penguin Books, England (2004)

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....