Leeds English Democrats Chairman Chris Beverley writes about the issue of Human Rights legislation and how more often than not this legislation is twisted and used in order to defend the ‘rights’ of criminals.
The article can be seen here.
Whenever we see large scale criminal behaviour that is carried out by members of a particular ethnic group, the politically correct establishment immediately goes into overdrive in support of the human rights of those committing the offence. Apparently, certain ethnic groups have a fundamental human right to break the law with impunity, whilst others do not.
There is little wonder that the subject of human rights is such a divisive one in our society, provoking such derision and ridicule. Think only how often you have heard the phrase; “but what about our human rights?” being voiced in response to the latest outrage in the press.
There are many misconceptions about the source of human rights law and it is worth very briefly clarifying matters here before we go any further.
Many assume that the UK’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has something to do with our membership of the European Union, but in fact the ECHR and its court in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights, were created by the Council of Europe, whose creation pre-dates that of the European Union and also has its headquarters in Strasbourg (situated close to the European Parliament -no wonder there is confusion!)
Those drafting the ECHR took into account the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The issue of human rights law is therefore one which is not primarily connected with the issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union, however let me qualify that, and perhaps muddy the waters somewhat, by mentioning the European Union’s very own, and much more recently-drafted, Charter of Fundamental Rights, which overlaps with the ECHR in many areas.
With such technicalities dealt with, let me return to the substantive issue of human rights and the laws which uphold them.
It seems barely a week goes by without us hearing of perverse rulings from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Literally as I was writing this article I was sent a link to an article in the Express which detailed:
“SEVEN rapists, two murderers, 13 other sex offenders and 66 violent thugs escaped deportation last year after they successfully used the European Convention on Human Rights to support their cases.”
“Scrap the human rights laws” or “abolish the European Court of Human Rights” is often the visceral and entirely comprehensible response to such cases.
How can it be that rulings so perverted and alien to our people’s sense of natural justice can emanate from the highest court at which our people may seek justice?*
The tragic thing is that there is little, if anything, in the European Convention of Human Rights that most decent, rational people would disagree with. The document was produced just five years after the conclusion of the second world war. The horrors of mass genocide were still palpable. Stalin still tyrannised the Soviet Union.
The attempt to introduce a binding convention that forbade, for instance, torture, mass murder, and enslavement was a most explicable and, indeed, noble undertaking. Such international rules, if implemented correctly, should contribute to fairer and more just societies wherever they are enforced.
It is the perversion of human rights legislation in the name of political correctness which has led to the unjust situation that we must endure today, in which the human rights of criminals and special interest groups appear to be elevated above the rights of law abiding citizens. Once again liberals, with their warped and irrational view of the world, have succeeded in taking a fundamentally positive set of ideas and twisting them beyond all recognition.
For wherever someone legitimately claims a right, this implies an obligation on the part of someone else. One cannot exist without the other.
Let us take the example of the right not to be murdered. (I use the term ‘murdered’ rather than ‘killed’, as the original ECHR does not prohibit lawful killings e.g. with regard to a state’s right to implement capital punishment). No sane person could argue with this fundamental human right.
Citizen A has the right not to be murdered, as does everyone else is in society. This means that Citizen A also has the obligation not to murder others. It would be entirely unreasonable for him to demand a right not to be murdered whilst at the same time taking upon himself to murder others. And yet we hear time and again of examples in which the human rights of murderers appear to be elevated above their obligations not to murder, or indeed the rights of their victims not to be murdered.
The problem with liberals is that they believe in rights without responsibilities. They are the babies of the political arena.
When a baby wakes up in the night hungry, he will cry and demand his bottle. He wants it now and has no interest in the effort that others must go to in order to provide it. He acknowledges no responsibility on his part to do anything other than demand that it is provided; the provision of his bottle is entirely the responsibility of others.
Our baby’s behaviour is perfectly understandable of course, as babies could not possibly be expected to understand the concept of rights and responsibilities. As babies become toddlers and toddlers grow into bigger children, they are taught by their parents that the world is, in fact (quite contrary to their previously held belief), not organised purely around their needs and wishes. They are taught to respect others and to treat others how they would wish to be treated. They are taught that they cannot just take – they must also give.
Liberals are grown up babies that have never really grown up. They demand rights for themselves and their pet interest groups but do not acknowledge any corresponding obligations and responsibilities. They are hypocrites who have no qualms about denying others the exact same rights which a moment before they were championing.
Such hypocrisy is a cornerstone of political correctness and these attitudes have been so pervasive in our society over the past few decades that there are few areas that have not been infected with them.
Our party rejects political correctness in all its many guises. A whole section of our manifesto (section 3.19) is dedicated to this issue.
Our manifesto recognises the abuse of human rights laws in the name of political correctness and declares that we stand for:
The repeal of the Human Rights Act and the withdrawal of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. Both of these flawed items of legislation have perversely assisted criminals while offering little of substance to the law-abiding population. (Section 220.127.116.11)
An English Democrat government will restore common sense and fairness to our society. We English have a proud legal and constitutional history which equips us well to ensure justice for all our citizens.
When our children read about terrorists failing to be deported due to concern for their human rights, they will be reading about such cases in history books, not in the latest issue of a gutter tabloid.
*The Human Rights Act 1998* actually subsumed the European Convention of Human Rights into English law, meaning that English courts can hear human rights cases thus obviating the need for them to be heard in Strasbourg.