You may be surprised to learn that there are at least four declarations of Human Rights. Some have their good points, but none have really addressed the underlying need, in my opinion: to prevent evil from entering into nations, and to remove that evil once it has entered. The root of this failure, I think, is the failure to recognise that Human Rights do have a natural hierarchy.
The European Convention makes a good step to acknowledging the reality that rights do have a natural hierarchy, which the Universal Declaration fails to address. However, the European Court has demonstrably failed to uphold this principle. It is thus not fit for purpose.
The European Convention document has become bloated beyond usefulness. The section dealing with the clauses should have been a concise, stand-alone document, yet it has become bloated by pettifogging details of the operation of the Court. Confusingly, the Convention and the Court both have the initials ECHR.
There are increasingly urgent calls for the UK to exit from the ECHR. And this is logical: the Court prevents the deportation of violent criminals. For example, failure to deport someone undesirable, because it would infringe on their right to a family life with their cat. I have noticed two things: cats are not humans, and cats do not particularly care which human feeds them, provided that they do get fed. But if the UK is to produce something better than the ECHR, what should it look like?
The UK Supreme Court cannot in fact be supreme, given that the European Court effectively sits above it. The International Criminal Court is another entity with serious problems of subversion. A topic for another article maybe...
We need to first examine what the problem is, before we can possibly suggest any solutions. The problem, fundamentally, is that the ECHR is enabling the spread of evil into the West, rather than acting as a bulwark to prevent evil from entering. And failing to remove evil once it has been discovered. It is thus not fit for purpose.
Yes, we really do need to use the word “evil”. We must stop tiptoeing around it for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings. The very existence of our civilised society is at stake.
The threat we primarily face in the UK is not climate change, or energy or food scarcity etc., although these do need to be addressed honestly. The primary threat that the West faces is its increasing Islamisation. We can solve all sorts of other practical problems (food, energy, climate etc.), but only if we have a morally cohesive society. The UK is rapidly disintegrating, and is on course to be unable to satisfy even the basic needs. Elon Musk has stated that “civil war is inevitable”. He may have his faults, as we all do, but he is very intelligent and knowledgeable, and should be heeded. He was expressing a warning, not inciting a civil war. Some on the left seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension.
The four Human Rights declarations are:
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
1970 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI)
2004 Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR)
Here is an extract from the book: “Islam Versus Human Rights”. If anyone would like the free ebook edition, please just email me to request it. It is deliberately not restricted by copyright. It is very helpful to have a hardcopy too! The paperback can be ordered here:
Islam Versus Human Rights: Introduction
The concept of Human Rights as a codified list of principles is relatively new, although with deep roots. From Christian Gospels through to Magna Carta and on to more recent times with the abolition of slavery some two centuries ago, there has been a striving for upholding values of decency, truthfulness, and fairness. If everyone were to honestly attempt to live according to the Golden Rule there would probably be no need for legalisation or codification of such principles. The Golden Rule is simply stated: treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Or conversely, do not treat others in a way that you would not wish to be treated.
Unfortunately it is the case that Islam, based on its clearly stated scriptural instructions, and the documented behaviour of its prophet Mohammed, are fundamentally incompatible with the Golden Rule.
And by the way, the Wikipedia entry for the Golden Rule claims that Islam is compatible with it. You should understand that Wikipedia is not always factually accurate, and that apologists for Islam are permitted to be deceitful when defending Islam, and very often are. You do need to put in some effort of your own in order to uncover the truth, and not just lazily believe whatever you are told by some alleged authority.
Islam should more accurately be regarded as a political ideology for world domination, using physical violence where it deems necessary, rather than as purely a religion. It does have a religious element, which broadly can be regarded as based on the verses in the Koran that were revealed to Mohammed during the earlier part of his prophetic career, spanning his time in Mecca. After he and his followers moved to Medina his behaviour and instructions became increasingly violent and intolerant, and what we would today describe as totalitarian.
Throughout history, tyrants have arisen whose behaviour and instructions to their followers are also incompatible with the Golden Rule. Often they are also totalitarian, seeking to control the totality of every aspect of the life of those subjected to them. Freedom is not something that such tyrants permit. Mohammed was a tyrant.
During World War II, the Allies adopted the ‘Four Freedoms’ in opposition to tyranny: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), created in 1948, followed on from these. United Nations member states voted to adopt the Declaration, with some notable exceptions: Saudi Arabia, for instance, stated that the UDHR was contrary to Sharia. They are correct: it is contrary to Islamic laws and the teachings of the Koran, and the example of the behaviour of Mohammed.
The UDHR constituted an excellent first step; however, it also brought with it some problems. Most notably, the clauses within it are presumed or implied to be of equivalent significance. This is a problem in some cases, such as when religious freedom is deemed to be of equal significance as, for example, gender equality. Islam does not recognize gender equality. There is, therefore, a clear need for a hierarchy of rights. And as noted earlier, Islam is not solely a religion — it is also a totalitarian political ideology, in that it seeks to and does indeed control people who are not even Muslims, when it has the opportunity to do so.
The right to freedom of religion is most glaringly incompatible with other rights where that religion is Islam. Christianity has also fallen short — for example, by blatantly discriminating against homosexuals.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which entered into force in 1953, recognizes the problem of the incompatibility of freedom to practice religion, and the freedom to enjoy other rights, whereas the UDHR seems not to have understood this problem. The ECHR explicitly states what the hierarchy of rights must be, see Article 9:
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
In other words, the freedom to practice religious beliefs is less important than the freedom attached to other rights, for example equality between women and men. Islam does not permit such equality (although of course Muslims are permitted and indeed encouraged by Islam to be deceitful, so they may very well claim that women are regarded as equal within Islam).
The ECHR also includes numerous Articles relating to the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights which should (presumably) be irrelevant for the UK.
Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights has seriously damaged its credibility in various cases. It has [October 2018] upheld an Austrian Court order, which de facto made it illegal to criticise Islam.
In this case, an Austrian citizen was prosecuted for suggesting that Mohammed might be described as a paedophile for having had a very young wife. Aisha marred Mohammed when she was six years old, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine — according to established Islamic scriptures. The Court’s ruling has thereby made it illegal to criticise the morality of the behaviour of Mohammed. The right to freedom of expression was deemed subordinate to ‘religious feelings’ in this case. One would have thought this inversion of the hierarchy is contrary to Article 9 of the ECHR. However, it seems that judges in Strasbourg are no more interested in “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as judges in the UK have proven themselves to be.
It is clear that Human Rights cannot be secured while Islam is a powerful force. There are numerous examples of where the Koran stands in opposition to Human Rights, as described later.
UDHR Article 19 states that we must have freedom of opinion and freedom to express this. Islam abjures freedom: witness the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The attacks on Danish cartoonists effectively created the death penalty for blasphemy. The UK has barred Armenian-American scholar Robert Spencer from entering the country, breaching this Article — and this breach of Human Rights has been uncontested by Church or State.
Islam is incompatible with Human Rights and democratic societies. Allah’s laws are regarded as superior to ‘man-made’ laws. Islam is seen to be contrary to public safety: killing infidels and apostates is mandated in the Koran. It contravenes public order: Muslims carrying placards in the UK which incite murder are free from arrest. Islam is contrary to health: marriage between first cousins is allowed in the Koran. Islam is contrary to morals: it is immoral to implement cruel and inhuman punishments such as cutting off hands and feet. Islam will utterly destroy our rights and freedoms when it is in a position to do so — in the latter half of this century in numerous Western nations, if demographic trends continue.