Sunday, 29 July 2012

Any member of the Counterjihad movement who supports the idea of human rights must take a public position on the way the idea has been implemented in modern Europe. An abundance of news reports make it clear that human rights judges are facilitating the islamisation of Europe and its demographic conquest by third-worlders generally.

Presumably, Counterjihadists do not support this. Yet still they do support the idea of human rights. There has to be at least some doubt about the moral validity of supporting an abstract system of ideas while distancing yourself from all its real-world implementations. As I've said before, this is like the diehard Communists who claim real Communism has never been tried yet. Somehow the dozens of real-world Communist regimes never got the idea quite right, we're told. Real Communism would be much better. It also recalls Muslims claiming Islam is a religion of peace and that somehow the millions of Muslims across the planet who wage jihad on their neighbours or otherwise subject them to maltreatment haven't properly understood their own religion. If only, we're assured, people could arrive at a true understanding of Communism/Islam/Human Rights (delete as appropriate) it would be like the arrival of paradise on earth! But let's skip this point for now and, for the sake of pursuing the discussion, generously concede that these Counterjihadists may support human rights without bearing any blame for all of its damaging real-world implementations.

Even then the very fact that Counterjihadists distance themselves from the way the human rights racket operates in modern Europe undermines the validity of the concept itself. Our interpretation of what human rights should be differs from that of the judges, they would presumably retort. But the whole idea of human rights is that they embody fundamental moral entitlements. If decent, rational people can disagree about what these moral entitlements are, it suggests they are something less than fundamental. But if human rights do not embody primal moral claims but simply competing political agendas, the idea itself loses all ethical force. It becomes clear that human rights, like war of old, has simply become a continuation of politics by other means. But the appropriate way to pursue political agendas is through the ballot box. And the cheapened concept of human rights is revealed to be no more inherently deserving of respect than the average party political manifesto issued by the latest gang of crooks in power.

Moreover, by insisting that they disagree with the human rights ideas of human rights judges, Counterjihadists concede my core criticism of the concept, namely that it is dangerously ambiguous, so lacking in clarity that we can never be confident of its effect in the real world.

Furthermore, these human rights supporters who oppose the advance of Islam ought to explain how exactly it is that they envisage the idea of human rights operating in Europe. I realise that, like the multicultists they claim to oppose, their commitment to bringing betterment to the lives of non-Europeans is so profound that it must be awfully boring for them to have their attention dragged back to their own continent. But, really, due to our entire civilisation - the greatest the world has ever known - now standing on the brink of perdition thanks to this spirit of relentless xenomania, this obsession with barbarous brown people who need to be redeemed, I'm afraid I really must insist that they leave off expostulating on the latest outrages of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the OIC in Jeddah and spend at least a few minutes on home. Because, in case you haven't noticed, the barbarous brown people are now living amongst us. And they haven't been redeemed.

Here are some questions that need to be answered. Do you agree with the standard formulations of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights? If not, what version of human rights do you prefer? Do you have a written formulation of what you believe our human rights are? Do you believe that human rights should be justiciable in modern Europe? Or said differently: do you believe that we should have human rights courts with the power to invalidate laws passed by elected governments? If you believe human rights judges have got their interpretation of human rights wrong, how can you possibly justify creating an undemocratic monster with the power to invalidate laws? And once it has been created, and is making these "wrong" interpretations of human rights, what do you propose to do about it? Since you have made it immune to democracy, because you don't trust democracy (since "Hitler was elected and the dumb plebs, I mean people, don't always get it right and might oppress the nice minorities!"), what do you do when it starts to go rogue and make unsound decisions about issues critical to the future of Europe?

Your only strategy is to keep spreading anti-Islam propaganda in the hope that it will one day percolate through to the elites who comprise and appoint the human rights judges. But elite membership depends on public acceptance of the very moral ideals that are responsible for the islamisation of Europe. Witness Thilo Sarrazin, former Berlin senator for the German Socialist Party (SPD) and Bundesbank board member until he wrote a book critical of Muslim immigration. As soon as a member of the elite dares to dissent, in very short order he will no longer be a member of the elite. So a strategy focused on hoping that elites will one day snap out of their entrancement with Islam (which is actually an entrancement with the ideal of non-discrimination, an ideal that goes hand in hand with the concept of human rights) is a bit like democracy campaigners of old writing petitions to the king, asking him to do the right thing and grant them the vote.

There are never answers to these questions from the human rights fanboys and fangirls within the Counterjihad movement. There are no answers because there can be no answers. To even ask the questions is to expose the foolish inconsistency of the ideas and the fact that those who expound them haven't properly thought the issue through. They are simply roping in the phrase "human rights" because it adds a bit of moral glamour to their cause and helps deflect accusations of racism/imperialism/islamophobia. But that's not good enough. The idea that all religions are inherently deserving of respect is what is allowing Islam to make its advances. That idea comes straight out of the standard human rights charters. It's not on our side. It's what we're fighting against.

UPDATE: Baron Bodissey has responded to this on Gates of Vienna. He asks why Counterjihadists must clarify their position on human rights. Well, because it's not responsible to do otherwise. Just as it would not have been responsible to go around promoting Communism during the Cold War era without making it clear whether you supported the regimes in Moscow and Peking or had some other understanding of what Communism should be.

He also asks who, specifically, these Counterjihadists are that endorse human rights so fulsomely. I haven't named names partly to focus on ideas and make it less personal. It's all very well saying "We're all adults", but even the limited debate that has taken place on the comment threads on this site shows that people very easily tip over into irrationality and pique once their ideas are challenged. But also I haven't felt the need to name names because it seems to me the promotion of the idea of human rights is so pervasive within the Counterjihad movement. Part of the movement clusters around Gates of Vienna; another part clusters around Robert Spencer/Pamela Geller/SION. Examine the public statements issued at their conferences, self-descriptions and major declarations of principle and you will almost invariably find the phrase "human rights" to the fore, usually without further qualification. For example, the very first words in the Mission Statement of the English Defence League read, "The English Defence League (EDL) is a human rights organisation...".

If people make use of a phrase and concept in common use without specifying in what way their understanding of it differs from the generally accepted understanding, most people will assume that they are using it in the standard sense. Of course the clarifications in the Baron's post are welcome. In particular, if human rights are understood to be non-justiciable, much of the problem they present is eliminated. But that is clearly not how many other people understand them. And by invoking the mantra of human rights without careful and continuous qualification, you are effectively promoting their understanding of the concept as well as your own.


Anonymous said...

This is why the Muslim dogs defeat us:

Sheikh Sayed A-Rifae Al-Husseini expressed displeasure towards Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, and the Municipality for approving the construction of a new church in Jleeb Al-Shuyoukh, stressing that it is not permissible as per the Sharia.

He added that giving excuses such as it is a matter of human rights and international norms to build it, is not acceptable, as Islam comes first, and people should respect religion first before serving humanity or anything else.

alas said...

Human rights lie fundamentally on the principles of universality - and it is my opinion that it is this which is to blame for our predicament. What is good for Europe is not the same as what is good for the Middle East (from the point of view of those living there at least). Local cultures and traditions, with histories and peoples, should not be disregarded because of seemingly 'rational' and abstract beliefs in universal concepts such as freedom of movement, and anti-racism. We should seek to protect our inheritances not because they are the best or because they can be argued to be so based on rational argument, but because they are exactly this; nothing more and nothing less than our inheritance which our forefathers gave to us and we pass on to our children, whether or not they are compatible with universal concepts which seem faultless but when applied quickly turn the real world into a living hell with growing inconsistencies between theory and practice.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100%. The doctrinaire insistence on adhering to the ambiguous and hopelessly self-contradicting concept of "human rights" as promulgated by the UN and EU is probably the single biggest error committed by the anti-Islamization movement in Europe.

Natural or "negative" rights is a much more realistic and beneficial concept.

Anonymous said...

Another good post on what will hopefully become an intellectual war on the whole disingenuous concept of Human Rights. It needs bearing in mind that Human Rights were a product of the French Revolution, an evil period of history that in Robespierre produced one of Europe’s blackest monsters.

Human Rights are of course an artificial construct. Such things do not exist as independent entities, they are merely a list of actions that a particular judicial system allows you to pursue.

Note that ‘Rights’ are prescriptive, thus Human Rights turn traditional mores on their head. In healthy societies one is free to do as one pleases unless it is prohibited by law. Human Rights do the complete opposite, they tell you what you can do, and give you the legal power to claim these ‘Rights’ irrespective of their consequences. These ‘Rights’ may run counter to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of society, they might even be actively harmful to that society.

However – and here we come to the nub of the business - they do allow third party interference in the business of other countries and societies. Therefore, if tribe ‘A’ kills tribe ‘B’ – as politics is practised in most of Africa – Human Rights allow third parties to condemn these actions as being ‘unlawful’. Note that even if the country in which these actions are occurring is not party to any Human Rights agreement it will still be held accountable.

Hey presto, we have a global legal system.

Human Rights are in practice what they were always designed to be, a powerful weapon in the Globalisation (or ‘Internationalist’) project. Their impact is to atomise societies, breaking traditional, identitarian collectives into nondescript individuals – part of the great ‘equality’ scam. Of course such an atomised population is far easier to manipulate than the naturally occurring plurality of broad kinship – better known as ‘nations’. Free-floating individuals are easy meat, Globalist cannon-fodder kept quiescent on a cocktail of sex and mass entertainment all wrapped up in a fluffy blanket of bootless hedonism.

Like written constitutions, Human Rights are neither natural nor self-evident in their application – they need interpretation. To interpret the meaning of these woolly ideas we turn to the judiciary. As Human Rights are placed above all constraints and can ignore all other forces – such as democracy, political necessity or even previous legal precedents – they place huge power into the hands of a small clique of senior judges. Their interpretation of these ‘Rights’ change with the seasons, as do their interpretation of constitutions in those countries stupid enough to place such power in the hands of an unaccountable body.


Anonymous said...

Human rights under sharia, that's what it's all about.

That means the soldiers Allah can genocide us legally.

Anonymous said...

That was brilliant. Perfectly stated, and absolutely true.

Kilroy aka "Max Schultz" said...

"Natural human rights are summed up and expressed in self-ownership, in true human freedom. That every person is the absolute owner of his or her own life and is free to do whatever he or she wishes with their own person or property, as long as they respect that same freedom in others. It is your choice whether or not you stand up for yourself." --From my paper Freedom vs. Sedition (I have sent a copy of this paper to Gates of Vienna in the hope that they will post it soon.)

Enza Ferreri said...

The link to Gates of Vienna is broken.

So far I have partly answered the arguments of this post in two articles of my new blog, "Is There Something Wrong with Human Rights?"

and "Human Rights Are Not the Problem"

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews