THUMPA AND THE TYRANNY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

BY IAN R THORPE

If you want a vision of the futu e i!a"ine a !i#ita y $oot t ea%in" on a hu!an fa&e fo eve ' Geo "e O we##( )*+,

In the wake of Barack Obama's great foreign policy triumph, a cliché laden speech in Cairo in which he promised to work with terrorist groups to bring western style 'liberal democracy' to countries ruled since the colonial powers quit by absolutist tyrannies, the countries where the so called Arab pring uprisings succeeded in ousting tyrants are further away from democracy than e!er" Islamist fanatics ha!e grabbed power in #ibya, $unisia and %gypt and are preparing to by the sharia, their !ersion of the law of &od" $hey re'ect what they call 'man(made laws' the laws by which most nations li!e" )or the same reason, Islamists re'ect democracy" It is a sham, they say, and an offence against &od, the supreme ruler"

In the 'enlightened' west the unconstrained powers of the %uropean *uman +ights Court ,%*+C- and the increasing focus of the .nited tates upreme Court on human rights are the secular equi!alent" /rogressi!es, those obsessi!e compulsi!e sociopaths who lo!e to parade their assumptions of moral superiority think that the %uropean Con!ention on *uman +ights and the trasbourg court which enforces it are sacred" $hey belie!e these rights should be forced upon people e!erywhere, regardless of how anyone !otes, regardless of how the di!erse peoples of the world ha!e e!ol!ed socially" *uman rights are their sharia" In Iran, the &uardian Council of senior clergy makes the final decision about whether anything passed by the parliament is compatible with Islamic law" In %urope, the %C*+ has the same absolute authority o!er the decisions of all the member parliaments, including our own" I am not sure how far the powers of the ." " upreme Court reach" 0hile the punishments handed out by these allegedly liberal and democratic bodies do not ,yet- in!ol!e stoning or the amputation of body parts, the principle is the same1 20e2, says the priesthood of human rights lawyers, 2are in sole possession of the truth1 no other power may stand against us"2 Before becoming /rime 3inister, 4a!id Cameron was suspicious of the human rights theocrats" $he moment he stepped into his official residence howe!er power started to corrupt him" *e had promised to set up a commission on a British Bill of +ights,he idea being to bring home human rights in Britain and place them under the super!ision of British courts and British go!ernment" *e soon started to back of that position in order to earn a pat on the head from other %. leaders and .5 bureaucrats" 5ow we ha!e a situation in which the %C*+ can rule that Britain must gi!e prisoners the !ote" 5o ma'or political party and no large section of public opinion agrees" $he British /arliament !oted o!erwhelmingly against this measure" 6et, under our present relationship with %urope with which the traitor Blair saddled us, there is absolutely nothing that our elected representati!es can do about it" In fact because the %C*+ is controlled by left wing elitists we find those con!icted of and imprisoned for serious crimes ha!e more 2rights2 than hard working, law abiding citi7ens" $his is the ine!itable result of allowing bureaucracy to usurp democracy"

I ha!e seen many progressi!es talking about when democracy fails ,as in the !otes in se!eral . states to prohibit same se8 marriage- the central go!ernment must 2step in and do what is right"2 But who decides what is right if not the ma'ority9 $he unelected bureaucrats9 0e could call such thinking the usurpation of parliamentary so!ereignty" 5obody wants to remo!e human rights from our law and as belie!ers in democracy we should welcome the fact that the courts will sometimes reach decisions that challenge the will of the ma'ority in their efforts to protect minority interests" *a!ing said that howe!er elected legislators as representati!es of the people must ha!e some power of democratic o!erride" In Britain's principal Court of :ustice, the Old Bailey, there words are inscribed abo!e the portal1 "The welfare of the people is the paramount law." &%44I$ progressi!es, the people; not 'some of the people" It does not say 2$he welfare of the blacks, *ispanics, crims, peedos, turd burglars, rug munchers, retards, dopeheads, crackheads and dickheads is the paramount law ,they'd need bigger doors- but $he /eople as in 0e $he /eople" And who can better determine what constitutes the welfare of the people than the ma'ority of the people" 5ot the ten per cent of elitist, morally superior self styled progressi!es but all the people" Because when human rights law starts to curtail the rights of some in order to e8tend the rights of others we are no longer talking about democracy but tyranny" $he tyrannophiliac left may delude themsel!es that utopia could be gained under a benign, 3ar8ist totalitarian global go!ernment but that only shows they are less well informed than the so called low information !oters they so despise" It does not really take much reading to find out what life was and is like under talin and Bre7hne!, 3ao $se $ung, %rich *oneker, )idel Castro, <im Il ung and <im :ong Il, 3obutu, Ceaucescu, and almost e!ery other 3ar8ist leader anywhere" %!en the most benign, like $ito in 6ugosla!ia, were not e8actly pussycats" In fact =human rights> is a phrase so completely misunderstood by 'liberals' and 'progressi!es' ,i"e" those who would impose their moral pre'udices on the world, by force if necessary- that it has become meaningless" $hose progressi!es who are in fact more emotionally needy that radical thinkers ha!e for years been to eager to use

=human rights> to 'ustify all sorts of !anity pro'ects" $owards the end of the #abour /arty go!ernment ,?@@A B CD?D- in the .< we ha!e the /rime 3inister linking a proposed law making internet access a human right with a populist policy to gi!e free internet enabled laptop computers to poor and disad!antaged people" $his of course confuses rights with entitlements" 5obody in the .<, unless they are in prison, is denied access to the net ,some prisoners ha!e limited access-but permitted by law to use the net is not the same as being gi!en a free computer and landline" Another cra7y proposal from the left was to declare access to clean water a human right" $his sort of presupposes the thug working for the local warlord and pointing a gun at your head will allow you to use the !illage pump" $he .ni!ersal 4eclaration of *uman +ights, popularly know as the &ene!a Con!ention defines a range of rights we should all be able to e8pect1 $he .4*+ was the first international statement to use the term 2human rights2, and has been adopted by the *uman +ights mo!ement as a charter" It is short, and worth reading in its entirety (( a summary would be about as long as the document itself"
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights $his co!enant details the basic ci!il and political rights of indi!iduals and nations" Among the rights of nations are1 • the right to self determination • the right to own, trade, and dispose of their property freely, and not be depri!ed of their means of subsistence Among the rights of indi!iduals are1 • the right to legal recourse when their rights ha!e been !iolated, e!en if the !iolator was acting in an official capacity • the right to life • the right to liberty and freedom of mo!ement • the right to equality before the law • the right to presumption of innocence til pro!en guilty • the right to appeal a con!iction • the right to be recogni7ed as a person before the law • the right to pri!acy and protection of that pri!acy by law • freedom of thought, conscience, and religion • freedom of opinion and e8pression • freedom of assembly and association $he co!enant forbids torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, sla!ery or in!oluntary

ser!itude, arbitrary arrest and detention, and debtor's prisons" It forbids propaganda ad!ocating either war or hatred based on race, religion, national origin, or language" It pro!ides for the right of people to choose freely whom they will marry and to found a family, and requires that the duties and obligations of marriage and family be shared equally between partners" It guarantees the rights of children and prohibits discrimination based on race, se8, color, national origin, or language" It also restricts the death penalty to the most serious of crimes, guarantees condemned people the right to appeal for commutation to a lesser penalty, and forbids the death penalty entirely for people under ?E years of age" $he co!enant permits go!ernments to temporarily suspend some of these rights in cases of ci!il emergency only, and lists those rights which cannot be suspended for any reason" It also establishes the .5 *uman +ights Commission"

5o mention of a right to internet access, a right to marry ,the same se8 marriage contro!ersy is one of the most ridiculous abuses of the term =human right>" 5obody has the right to marry, it is a pri!ilege granted by society or a particular church of which the couple are members, so why should same se8 couples be gi!en a =right> not en'oyed by mi8ed se8 couples9 #ikewise howe!er, race relations acts build pre'udice into the law" If I go into a shop or restaurant the owner or manager has the right to refuse to ser!e me, no reason need be gi!en" +efuse a black or *ispanic customer howe!er and it is race crime" And lately we ha!e e8tended the in'ustice by making it a hate crime to refuse to ser!e gays, trans!estites, people with tattoos or any sort of weirdo" At the same time as these new, spurious =rights> are being granted without due consideration of consequences we are losing other rights to a fascistic political minority who are moti!ated by control freakery" In the . A, %urope, Australia and elsewhere, laws relating to =equality> and another ridiculous concept, =hate crime> are curtailing our right to free speech ,defined as =freedom of opinion and e8pression> in the declaration"/olitically correct thinking has declared certain opinions unacceptable and the e8pression of those opinions criminal acts" )ree speech is one of the most fundamental rights that people li!ing in a democratic society can e8pect" But like ma'ority rule, the defining principle of any form of democracy, it does not fit well with the crypt ( fascist agenda of the politically correct authoritarians"

In the fight to preser!e our right to free speech, the legacy of the late &lenister
)ermoy ,$humpa- heil is sadly o!erlooked; hiel was a rabbit farmer and Australian

senator whose unfashionable !iews on racial separation, fearlessly e8pressed, made him the shortest(ser!ing minister in Australia" $wo days of notoriety in ?@AA o!ershadowed heilFs other contributions to ci!ic debate, which is a pity, because $humpa might ha!e been an old fashioned, straight talking Okker but he was that most endangered of all political species, a man who stuck to his principles" O!er the course of his ?G years in AustraliaFs federal parliament, enator hiel was a beacon of common sense shining from atop a mountain of steaming bullshit" $humpa's finest hour came when &ough 0hitlamFs #abor go!ernment tabled the +acial 4iscrimination Bill in ?@AH" $he conser!ati!e opposition was preparing to bring down 0hitlam's go!ernment by !etoing the budget but was too cowardly to back its instincts and block AustraliaFs first human(rights legislation" It was left to $humpa, and a handful of other courageous or cra7y senators, to question the billFs constitutional !alidity and its threat to free e8pression" Only $humpa and his backbench chums were prepared to defend the reputation of the Australian people, impugned by the tabling of legislation designed to cleanse society of ingrained racism" I$he passage of this bill would take some fundamental rights away from us, such as the right of free speech, free discussion and publication, $humpa said, addressing parliament during the billFs second reading speech" I)ar from eliminating racial discrimination by making it illegal, the bill will highlight
Please feel free to express your opinions.

the problems between the races and create an official race(relations industry

with a staff of dedicated anti(racists earning their li!ing by making the most of e!ery

complaint in much the same way as does the +ace +elations Board in the .nited <ingdom"F I$his billF, $humpa continued, Iwill create yet another large and e8pensi!e federal go!ernment department" It will be headed by a race(relations commissioner with the status of a *igh Court 'udge and with powers similar to those used in the panish Inquisition"F 5obody e8pects the panish Inquisition" $humpaFs speech was dismissed as I5eanderthal gruntsF by #abour 3/s, but today his predictions appear to ha!e been uncannily accurate" *e was getting ahead of himself with the line about the panish Inquisition, howe!er; that would require another legislati!e ad!enture in the form of the +acial Jilification Act ?@@K ( a pernicious assault on personal freedom that the .<'s /olitically Correct $hought /olice would not catch up with until *arriet *arperson's ,*arman's but we ha!e to be /C- %qualities Bill in CDD@" *arman's bill, you may remember, states that if a person of racial, religious or other minority hears something they feel is offensi!e then the person who uttered the remark is guilty, no trial, no plea of mitigation admissible, a with hunt style of 'ustice in fact" $he Australian +acial Jilification Act was the legislation which newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt was found to ha!e broken in CD?? by suggesting that the rules for claiming Aboriginal identity are not e8actly black and white" $hat flawed and illiberal hate law bill, and numerous other audacious acts of human(rights mission creep, went through !irtually on the nod" Astute 3/s on both sides of parliament were aware of its illiberal implications, but only the principled ,or some would say insane- like $humpa were prepared to stand firm in the path of the human(rights bandwagon in a full and self righteous charge " In the no!el On the Beach, 5e!ille hute painted Australia as a good place to escape a nuclear war, but that was in the ?@HDs when Australia was populated by brash, self(confident, pragmatic who weren't afraid to sho!el shit for a li!ing if it paid well" ince then people of this distant island continent ha!e been unable to a!oid

infection from the plague of self righteousness, moral !irtue and politically correct sissification that took hold in the ?@ADs, and gained strength as a tool with which to shame the o!iet bloc into capitulation where con!entional weapons had failed" 5ot all Australians, not e!en a ma'ority but enough and in the right sectors of society were more concerned with what the world thought about them than in getting on with doing what needed to be done"

$he human rights is industry now a multimillion(dollar, go!ernment(funded concern in Australia and throughout the de!eloped world, 'ust as $humpa hiel predicted" $here Australia now has nine official human rights agencies ,L.A5&Os or Luasi Autonomous 5on ( &o!ernmental Organisations-, one at a
A good place to escape nuclear holocaust buy not Politically correct tyranny.

federal le!el and one for e!ery state and territory, each employing a large staff of ta8 eaters li!ing off the public purse and helping whingers and malcontents pursue petty claims of discrimination against housing department officers, shopkeepers and nightclub bouncers" It is par for the course when these cases come to court ,usually a tribunal with three professional race hustlers on the bench rather than a court of law,- that the complainant will be compensated more generously for their hurt feelings that a soldier in a theatre of conflict will recei!e for the loss of a limb" Britain has more than its share of petty, nit picking race ( relations and human rights cases so I will not catalogue many of Australia's, howe!er cases concerning a department(store anta in outh Australia, who claimed discrimination on the ground of a disability when the store manager asked him to remo!e his glasses, or the Lueensland public ser!ant of Indian descent who took umbrage when offered a cup of black tea are classics and deser!e a mention"

It seemed that until late last year, Australia as we know it would e!entually disappear under this rising tide of sanctimony" $he federal go!ernmentFs new *uman +ights and Anti(4iscrimination Bill, claimed to merely consolidate rights but which in effect bra7enly e8panded them, looked set to sail through parliament on the winds of moral !irtue, with attorney general 5icola +o8on at the bow as Celine 4ion singing I3y *eart 0ill &o OnF" But somewhere the spirit of $humpa hiel was stirring" Luietly at first, but with a swelling, indignant chorus, respectable Australians of unimpeachable character began howling +o8onFs bill down" $he contri!ance of describing race, gender, se8ual orientation, disability or ?M other grounds for !ictimhood as Iprotected attributesF was a politically correct nonsense too far; the inclusion of industrial history, breastfeeding or pregnancy or social origin in the list of things that could not be mentioned suggested o!erkill ( and effecti!ely the abolition of con!ersation in Australia, nobody would ha!e dared say anything about anything without risking prosecution; the re!ersal of that most basic of the principles of Anglo a8on 'ustice ( presumption of innocent until pro!ed guilty, obliging alleged racists, misogynists and wheelchair kickers to do the impossible and pro!e a negati!e by demonstrating their innocence, was too much for Aussies to swallow" :im pigelman, a lawyer of some standing, !oiced his concerns about the outcome of a high profile case" II am not aware of any international human(rights instrument or national anti(discrimination statute in another liberal democracy that e8tends to conduct which is merely offensi!eF, 3r pigelman said" I0e would be pretty much on our own in declaring conduct which does no more than offend to be unlawful" $he freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech"F 3s +o8on has now stepped down, not ostensibly o!er the bill, although the une8pected contro!ersy may ha!e strengthened her desire to spend more time with her family" It is unlikely to proceed1 AustraliaFs Carbon )ascist prime minister :ulia &illard has too many challenges in an election year to want to fight a battle that will enshrine in the Australian constitution the principle of presumption of guilt"

Incredibly, the conser!ati!e opposition, which will almost certainly be in go!ernment in se!en months, is at last muscling up for a fight1 the one it should ha!e picked in ?@AH when the cowards abandoned $humpa hiel and again CD years later" hadow attorney general &eorge Brandis, noted the new human rights defined in the bill superseded the most important right of all in a democratic society1 the right to free speech" /olitical opinion would become a Iprotected attributeF he speculated" /rofessor $riggs was quick to add1 I0e would like to make the point that not all political opinion is protected" $he right is not absolute; it is sub'ect to certain constraints, most particularly along the lines of broad principles of reasonableness and good faith"F +o8on's successor /rofessor $riggs responded1 IIf the person putting the political !iew in a work conte8t is doing so in a way that amounts to some form of harassment of somebody in that workforce, and the employer says, =6ouFre upsetting my employees; youFre doing this so consistently and so insultingly that youFre disrupting the workplace, and IFm going to sack you>, the question then might be1 has this person been discriminated against on the grounds of their political opinion9F enator Brandis, who like $humpa comes from Lueensland, a rural and deeply conser!ati!e state, would not lea!e it at that" IAre you telling me that the 'udiciary or some other decision(maker will then sit in 'udgment and say, =6our political opinion is not reasonable and therefore it is not a protected attribute>9 I upset people e!ery day in the course of my 'ob by e8pressing political opinions, Iand rightly so, because that is what pluralism and democracy meanF" Ah, said /rofessor $riggs, we are protecting the right to hold opinions; it is their inappropriate e8pression that had the propensity to offend" If the e8pression of opinions conflicted with another aim ( public order, for e8ample, or the maintenance of a ci!ili7ed workplace ( then Iin the end, decision makers will ha!e to put limits on free speechF" 4ecision makers, limits; these are the kind of words belo!ed of the politically correct left that turn language upside down, disembowel it and strip it of all

reasonable meaning, this is the language of the solipsist, word can mean 'ust what the speaker wants them to mean and may change meaning from moment to moment" $his is the bullshit that made $humpa hiel's principled plain speaking shine out in the darkness" enator Brandis continued1 I uppose that in, say, a lunchroom in a workplaceN there are !igorously held and different !iews, some workers e8press an opinion among themsel!es but in front of another worker, and the worker who hears the opinion finds it e8tremely offensi!e and disturbingN hould the capacity to e8press political opinions ( unwelcome to their auditor ( be constrained9F II belie!e it can be, and ought to be, constrained, where the beha!iour ultimately becomes harassment ( if you want to use that wordF, replied the professor" I0e may get it wrong; the courts may get it wrong" But I think the critical point is to accept that nobody is there ob'ecting to the holding of the political !iew; the ob'ection is to the effect of that political !iew or the manner in which it is deli!ered"F .nlike political opinion, attributes like age or gender or se8uality are ob'ecti!e facts" $hey did not ha!e to be demonstrated" As enator Brandis pointed out1 I$here is no imperati!e for a MH(year(old man to go around saying, =IFm MH>" $hat does not happen"F , imilarly there is no reason for homose8ual men to go around saying 2I'm gay2 but they seem to think it is their right to do so and anyone offended by such beha!iour would be ill ad!ised to that their complaint to law,- /olitical opinion, howe!er, means nothing unless it is e8pressed" Brandis went on II do not know if you are familiar with C7eslaw 3ilos7Fs work $he Capti!e 3ind, or Arthur <oestlerFs book 4arkness At 5oonN $he whole point of political freedom is that there is an imperishable con'unction between the right to hold the opinion and the right to e8press the opinion" $hat is why political censorship is so e!il ( not because it prohibits us holding an opinion but because it prohibits us articulating the opinion that we hold"2 20e all agree that there is no law in Australia that says you cannot ha!e a particular opinion" 0e all agree that there are certain laws in Australia, including

defamation laws, that limit the freedom of speech" 3y contention is that there should not, in a free society, be laws that prohibit the e8pression of an opinionN $his attempt to say, =*olding an opinion is one thing but e8pressing an opinion is quite different>, is terribly dangerous in a liberal democratic politic"2 $humpa, for all his faults, would ha!e understood this point" Australia's /olitically Correct $hough /olice, e!idently, do not"

RELATED PO T ! ecret "ustice Threatens The Right To A #air Trial These stupid e$ualit% laws insult the pu&lic and threaten free speech 'ritish Press finds A 'ac(&one) Defends #reedom 'ro(en ocieties Li&eral 'igots
Primar% chool Teacher #orced Out #or Teaching *t+s O, To 'e -a% %qual +ights Campaigners 5ot Christians Are Imposing $heir Belief On Others #iberal9 0hat 4oes $hat 3ean9 tupid #efties Of $he 0eek B $he %qualities and *uman +ights Commission A Chronicle Of 4ecay $he &o!ernment *as $he +ight $o Curtail 6our )reedoms $en M $en $he cientific 4ictatorship $he 3aking Of an %!il %mpire

This is what happens in places where there is no freedom of speech

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful