The Fallacy of Human Rights

I came across an interesting article today called 'Human Rights: Nonsense On Stilts?' by Roger Scruton. Published in Forbes on May 20, 2014 I have placed a link to the full article at the bottom of this post. I have pulled extracts below which I find rather disturbing.

Saudi Arabia, China and Vietnam have been appointed to the United Nations Council on Human Rights. All three countries forbid free speech and harshly punish criticism of the regime. None respects religious freedom or freedom of conscience. None has a transparent system of law, and – to put it mildly – none has an immigration problem. So what does this tell us about the idea of human rights?

How on earth have these countries been appointed to the UN Council on Human Rights?

The Saudis have already complained that Norway violates the human rights of Muslims by permitting ‘hate speech’ against them – in other words by refraining from silencing open criticism of the Koran. This from a country in which Christians are forced to conceal their faith, in which apostates are whipped or executed, in which women are maintained in a state of domestic subjection, and in which those brave enough to criticize either the regime or its fanatical clergy are either dead or in jail. The Saudis are calling for all criticism of religion and the Prophet Muhammad to be made illegal in Norway. And to illustrate their impartiality they accuse Norway of ‘increasing cases of domestic violence, rape crimes and inequality in riches’ – failing to mention that a disproportionate numbers of those ‘rape crimes’ have been committed by immigrant Muslims.

The freedoms granted to the Muslim faith in Norway are not granted to any faith other than Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, it seems, Muslims have a ‘human right’ to be protected from the criticisms which their religion naturally invites. Clearly, whatever human rights are about, in the mind of the Saudi government, it is not the freedom of the individual. The doctrine of human rights, which was introduced to guarantee our freedom, is now being used to remove it. Religious fanatics and Leftist utopians have combined to subvert the only weapon that has until now been effective against them: the only weapon that could be used by the dissenting individual, but not by those who wished to silence him.

I find this absolutely astonishing. The controversy of some schools in the UK has been highlighted in the press recently with some calling it Islamism by the backdoor. This article suggests that the back door approach is also being used in the UN as well. Scarey times!

Article Link

a reply to: earthblaze
It is sad how we are told there are human rights but they get abused so much by TPTB & the system.
I think Human Rights may need a new definition.

You have the right to remain silent, nope. You have the right to a fair trial, nope. You have the right to education, nope. Shall I continue?

I also think huge violators like China, Vietnam & Saudia Arabia shouldn't be on the UN human rights counsel. Mind you I don't think the U.S should be either.

its very simple i think, keep religion and government separate. everyone gets the same deal. you are allowed to believe anything but don't ask for anything more than that.

This is the kind of thing that makes war necessary.

a reply to: earthblaze

I'd say:

1) consider the source.

2) consider the agenda of the source.

Rights are just social conventions, as evidenced by the empirical record.

Rights which aren't respected or enforced / protected by society are rights that de facto don't exist.

Of course, G. Edward Griffin and fans will beg to differ.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Do you suggest that military meddling in the internal affairs of another nation is justified if said country allegedly committed human rights violation against its own citizens?

Regardless how much more suffering and death a war would entail?

a reply to: earthblaze

I think the thing to realise here is that there is nothing wrong with those rights. The problem is what is being done in the name of those rights, by whom, and under whose authority.

I believe in human rights. I believe , however, that there are very few countries, even in the developed world, which behave utterly in accordance with those rights at all times, at all levels, and without exception. That however, should not detract from the fact that aiming toward the goal of adherence to the rules that they come along with, is a noble ideal to aim toward.

The trouble is, that like many other things that are being, or have been corrupted and destroyed, the UN has become dysfunctional and toothless in the extreme, so much so that it has been infiltrated in the clearest possible sense, by organisations which have absolutely no intention of promoting human rights in an effective way, but more to the point, desire to further weaken the amount of power the UN can wield against those who fail to meet the minimum standard set by the ideal of human rights.

That is the way every great convention on anything is neutered. Infiltration by those who most often violate its recommendations.

a reply to: FyreByrd

About EPPC

Founded in 1976, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.

As for the UN Human Rights Council:

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a United Nations System inter-governmental body whose 47 member states are responsible for promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

Members of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. So three years from now China, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam may not be members anymore.

originally posted by: Chiftel

a reply to: smithjustinb

Do you suggest that military meddling in the internal affairs of another nation is justified if said country allegedly committed human rights violation against its own citizens?

Regardless how much more suffering and death a war would entail?

I suggest military exist for defense only. Until the time comes that someone decides to infringe on the freedom of the people, military should refrain from doing anything. If some group has the intent to infringe on the freedom of the people, a pre-emptive strike might be necessary, imo.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: FyreByrd

About EPPC

Founded in 1976, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.’s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.

As for the UN Human Rights Council:

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a United Nations System inter-governmental body whose 47 member states are responsible for promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

Members of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. So three years from now China, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam may not be members anymore.

If it's a simple rotation of duties (which is good governance) then we can hope they learn about the advantages of protecting and promoting Human Rights - though some of these countries might consider freedom from fear and poverty a basic human right. Go figure.

The idea of human rights starts at the idea that no man owns another outright, that all human life has value and dignity, and that violence used against another human being must be used sparingly and justifiably.

A country that violates these ideals to the point that Saudi Arabia does can pretty much be taken with a grain of salt when they talk about human rights.

Also, what exact human rights are being broken by allowing criticism of religion? The idea of human dignity and the idea of using violence sparingly and justifiably doesn't mean that the rest of us have to protect your feelings. It doesn't mean that you have the right to be protected against discussion, only that you shouldn't have to be subjected to harassment and violence due to your religion.

Harassment has a definition, and somebody else eating pork somewhere or pointing out statistics on the violence rates of Muslim immigrants isn't it.

I don't think my opinion on this will be popular, but anyway...

Inalienable Human Rights are a myth. The society in which you live determines whether you are granted rights or not. This comes down to a plethora of factors such as the culture, ethnicity and religious adherence of the population; system of governance; laws and regulations; social norms and values; history of the region; and more.

You cannot force your own society's values and ideals on a foreign country, just because you believe those values and ideals are the right ones.

Right are nothing more than a socially constructed piece of cr*p.It weakens humanity and goes against everything natural.