Human Rights We Should Recognise

The recent riots have brought up a lot of commentary about the Human Rights Act, and Call Me Dave’s attack on the Act as contributing to the unrest. All this commentary seems to be from the point of view of the rioters, and the rights given under the act encouraging criminality and violence.

I want to look at the other side, my big gripe with European human-rights legislation. What I object to is not just the rights given that should not be rights, but also the fundamental rights that are not given; these also affected the course of the riots. Of course once the Human Rights Act was made law, it is often assumed that anything not included is not a human right.

The example here is the right to self-defence, including the right to keep and bear arms for this purpose.

For years the right of an Englishman to defend himself, his family and his property have been eroded. The change in this is discussed in an article on Powerline. The claimed reason, that we should rely on the police to protect us, has never been very sound. The police could never claim to be available at every time a man might need to defend himself, so the idea of abdicating this responsibility to the sanctioned authority was always ridiculous. The allegation that police are being told in cases of violent disorder to avoid arresting people and simply try to contain the situation makes it farcical.

Like any well-read lad I enjoyed reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as a boy; most people have seen Sherlock Holmes on film and television. Does it not strike people that Watson frequently carried a revolver, as occasionally did Holmes? It was clearly unremarkable to Conan Doyle, and of course it was an assumption at that time that a man might carry a weapon, and defend himself with it. Crime was a lot lower then, around a tenth for more than half the population, for a crime rate of around 1/6 to 1/7 today’s.

In 1964 advice to police was that self defence was not a reason to allow a fire-arms certificate to hold a handgun. Between 1997 and 1998 handguns were banned altogether (high-calibre in 1997, .22 in 1998). Now we are not allowed to carry any weapon at all for self defence. There is no requirement for the police to even suggest that the person was a threat to anyone else. If a person carries a weapon, or anything that can be used as a weapon, without a good excuse he or she can be prosecuted.

Since then there have been increasing cases of police persecuting and prosecuting people who defend themselves. There are cases that should never have come to court, there are cases of arrests that never resulted in charges but still cause distress to people who have already suffered the trauma of attacks on themselves or their homes and businesses.

So where is the human-rights legislation to protect rights of crime victims from the Police, when the criminals receive so much protection?

Of course there are many other rights that are being stripped by the government and the EU, or rights one of us might argue for, but because they are not coded into the European Convention on Human Rights there is almost no chance that they will be recognised as human rights.

Recently there was a television programme about fake Euro notes. It is a strict-liability offense in the Euro-zone to even own fake Euro notes, and also to try to spend them. Yet there are millions of fake notes in circulation. Many people might have them completely innocently. At least one British person, unfamiliar in any case with Euros, tried to spend a single fake note in a large bundle he had directly from a travel agent, yet had he been charged his lawyers had said he was best to plead guilty, as he had no defence. That the Austrian police did not charge him was good sense from them, to his fortune. Not everyone has been so lucky, and a law that relies on luck and the good sense of officers is a poor law.

Where is the protection of our human rights to carry currency without worrying that we might inadvertently commit a serious criminal offence?

What about the one right on which all others, and our freedom and political rights depend, the the protection of our right to free speech? It is protected under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with a few exceptions. One of which is protection of morals, another is maintaining the authority of the judiciary. Both of these exceptions are incompatible with what I would see as the human right to free expression.

Of course the UK libel laws are not compatible with natural rights to free speech, nor are the reporting restrictions on family courts, for example. So even our most fundamental right is not protected.

I could go on. Rights to privacy that Americans recognise in the fourth amendment to their constitution, right to free assembly, right to silence under police questioning (broken in the UK; if you disagree with my objection to the current British police caution of rights, I recommend this video "Don't talk to the police", advice from an American lawyer), rights to due process of law and against double jeopardy, rights to speedy trial.

All of these are rights recognised in the constitution of the USA, you will notice; the USA so criticised by sophisticated Europeans as the barbaric outpost of rednecks.

I would argue for other rights: the right to self determination, taken as far as euthanasia, the right to a proportional tax rebate if you choose supply from a third party of services currently offered by government, the right to freedom of choice to the degree that government cannot place extra taxes on products politicians feel we should use less (petrol, home energy and alcohol affect me, but tobacco is unfairly taxed too), and a few more radical libertarian positions. I am even willing to give credence to arguments in favour of right to use certain drugs that are currently illicit, although I am not a libertine and feel that more information is needed to decide on some of those issues.

There is even one right of criminals, to blind justice without considerations of motive (such as “hate crime”) or the victim’s wishes in sentencing. Both of these allow or encourage revenge, not justice.

So, not only does human rights legislation allow rights that are not natural human rights, especially to criminals and those who are not legally resident in this country, but by not mentioning certain rights, or by curtailing them in exceptions, it restricts the rights of the majority. This happens because when the British common law assumption that we have all rights that are not removed whether by historical precedent or by legislation has been supplanted by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Finally I believe that supplanting is unconstitutional. It is entirely at odds with British legal tradition, and if there is any one thing at the heart of the British constitution, tying together the various threads of our written constitution, it is legal tradition.

Entirely Predictable Consequences to Free Speech

I have written before about the unintended consequences, and the unspoken but intended consequences of laws, and especially of laws made in haste, made by an over-confident, bullying executive with a cowed legislative chamber or with weak or non-existent opposition.

The consequences of legislating against religious intolerance were not only predictable, they were widely predicted. Famously Rowan Atkinson and a few other comedians, making their living pointing out ridiculous pomposity of which religion can be a rich source, complained that such laws would be used to stifle entirely harmless and in fact important speech, including humour and debate.

Thus the charging of two Christians who are alleged to have argued with a Muslim guest should not be a surprise. It was not the stated intent of any law to criminalise entirely harmless disagreements, and the government at the time of the 2006 Religious Hatred Act’s progress denied that this would be the case. Worryingly the police did not even use this Act, although the same spirit is clear in the wording of the charges under the 1986 Public Order Act, an act intended to calm street disturbances, as being “religiously aggravated”. Are the police using the 2006 Act to guide their prosecution under the 1986 law, or are they making up the law as they go along? religious intolerance was not illegal in 1986, in fact I didn't think it was illegal now. Is this a generally accepted rider to a charge, and if so on what basis?

The Muslim woman in question might have been offended, but nowhere is it suggested she was threatened in any way. Where did anyone get the idea that a person has the right not to be offended? If freedom of speech is not the right to offend people then what is it? No-one objects to inoffensive speech, by its very nature, so its freedom need not be assured.

Incidentally I was reluctant to use the Daily Mail link above, due to the sometimes-justified reputation for over-the-top reporting, especially on this sort of issue. However after reading the Letter From A Tory about this my brief search only revealed one other national newspaper story. That was unsuitable because The Independent lied in the very first sentence that summarised the story, and lied in a way material to the events. Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang were not, as stated, charged with a racist offence.

Is the Independent simply incompetent? Does that incompetence show up some underlying tendency to see all politically-incorrect speech and action, from the most harmless to the most heinous as equivalent? Was this a deliberate attempt to make the Vogelenzangs look bad, and justify their arrest? It was at best farcical incompetence that should have been followed by a prominent apology and a sacking, at worst snide, disgusting, libellous dishonesty.

White House Chilling Free Speech?

If you are not American then you might not know about Glenn Beck, a presenter of a comment programme (opinion rather than news) on the Fox News TV channel. He claimed that President Obama is racist, and now Color of Change have organised an advertising boycott. More details are given in an LA Times blog post, indicating the great flaw that Beck's ratings have improved dues to the boycott.

Color of Change is a group apparently formed out of a racist, partisan lie, that George Bush had not helped black residents when Katrina struck. In fact a higher proportion of whites in New Orleans were killed, and the Federal Government could not legally act until asked by the (Democrat) Governor. Color of Change supported the Jena Six (black students who beat a white student “…into a state of bloody unconsciousness”). So Color of Change is basically a pro-black racist organisation, and part of the race industry.

Whether Beck’s charge that Obama is racist is justified or not it is fair political comment. Obama himself set the bar high, by suggesting that only he could be a post-racial president. I think there is a good case that he has been racist in his campaigning and some of his comments as president, but that is irrelevant as Beck’s programme is opinion, not news, Beck can make his case and others can argue it.

So how does the White House come into this?

It appears from the LA Times blog that one of the founders of Color of Change is Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the White House. Leaving aside that his appointment despite his links to a racist group is more evidence of Obama’s racism, it appears that a White House advisor is attacking the free speech of an Obama’s opponent.

This is highly suspect. Did the White House ask Mr Jones to start this campaign? If not, and given the way this looks, why did Obama not ask him to either distance himself from the group and disavow the campaign or to resign his post?

For someone supposedly so clever and politically adept, Obama makes an awful lot of unforced errors.

Hat duly tipped to Instapundit.

Update on Kenneth Gladney

I wrote yesterday about the beating received by Kenneth Gladney, an American conservative who was beaten by members of the Service Employees’ International Union, the SEIU.

At the time there was no good impression of the injuries he received. The attack was described as ‘a beating’, but all commentary was from people politically opposed to the SEIU’s stance on the healthcare issue under debate. Well, that is if you can call a beating debate, because it appears that ‘beating’ was an understatement. ‘Serious beating’ was certainly justified.

Hundreds of people, largely it appears from the ‘Tea Party’ movement (opposing large increases in government spending, for those non-Americans who have not heard of this), descended on the St Louis offices of the SEIU. Mr Gladney was able to join them, he is fortunate that he has been able to leave hospital. However it appears that he is as yet still unable to speak. That does not suggest a moderate knock-about. That suggests to me he was subject to some determined violence, from four cowardly attackers.

Notice that the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, rabble rousers who have supported violent criminals if they were black) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) did not manage to attend. That is the left for you. Event the ACLU won’t defend civil liberties taken away by their fellow lefties.

I wish for Kenneth Gladney swift justice and, more importantly, an even swifter recovery. Freedom-loving people everywhere are supporting you, Mr Gladney.

Update: of course the left-wing blogosphere cannot believe that the left has thugs. An ideology of coercion, socialism has always had its thugs, from the brownshirts of Germany in the 1930s to violent revolutionaries in South American jungle. My earliest memories of the left was the violent nastiness of the “peace” campaigners at Greenham Common, where we had family friends. Peace protesters who would attack a car with three young children in the back, entirely surrounding it and physically rocking it while shouting and screaming.

And There’s More …

Of course if the Left don’t want to hear, still don’t want to know, perhaps it is better if they shut up all criticism. How better to do that than cry “racism” at even the poorest satire however obtuse the twisted argument to claim racism? Of course this has been going on since Obama’s election campaign began, in response to even the most articulate, coherent argument against his politics.

Oh, and it's that muppet Paul Krugman again.

Political Punch

You might have heard by now about a black, American conservative, Mr Kenneth Gladney, being racially abused and attacked by members of a union (the SEIU) who were at a meeting to lend support to a Democrat politician who favours health-care reform. There has been a lot written even now, and I am sure more will come out.

However I found this exchange between a witness and an SEIU thug especially telling, as transcribed from video by Mary Katherine Ham in the Weekly Standard Blog,

"Two of you attacked that poor guy."

"No, we didn't."

"Yeah, you did!"

"He attacked America!"

Mr Gladney was an activist opposing the SEIU thug’s political opinion. The thug had no doubt his opinion was the correct one, so any dissent was to attack America.

Usual expansive hat tip to Glen Reynolds. I don't know what I'd blog without Instapundit!

Why Do We Have To Be ‘Proper’?

To be proper or polite is social lubricant. It takes away the little snags and makes social interaction run more smoothly, allows easier interaction and co-operation. As such it is important in some circumstances. Unfortunately in those circumstances it is falling away, and what is now termed anti-social behaviour (which is largely extreme rudeness and impropriety) is increasing, one of the great social ills of a generation told by left-wing nannies that the state is responsible for everything. We forget at our peril that we are all dependent on the kindness of strangers.

However there are circumstances where propriety is not needed at all. The obvious example is in a group of close friends, whose interaction and co-operation is dependent upon much deeper understanding. Another case is where entities have no need to co-operate or interact, and where impropriety simply does not matter.

So what business is it of Poland if Jeremy Clarkson’s humour is not proper? Poland can quite happily ignore Jeremy Clarkson. It would be ridiculous to suggest that this has any bearing on the editorial standards at the BBC outside Top Gear, where it might matter to Poland. There was no deeply nasty or offensive suggestion given about Poland, which might have affected opinion Poles have of Brits or Brits of Poles beyond the manufactured indignation of the media. Even they had to make some heavy interpretation and assumption to become offended.

Humour is important, freedom of speech more so. It is not up to officials or even elected politicians to determine what is funny, or what is a suitable topic for humour. Oh, and regardless of what the Polish embassy staff thought, I laughed like a drain.

The Future for Venezuela and Honduras?

Fidel and Raul Castro are the biggest supporters of Hugo Chavez. They have all supported Zelaya’s return to Honduras as President.

So as a blogger, critical of the government, what would I (and most of you) have experienced if living in Castro’s Cuba? Generation Y might be the best known Cuban anti-Castro blog. I have read Yoani Sánchez’s blog occasionally, and she felt she had avoided sanction because of her profile. However, that has not always protected her. Venezuela is already moving rapidly in the direction of state political censorship, and if Zelaya succeeds in his aim of returning to power I suspect he will follow his mentors to move Honduras that way.

Why is Barack Obama sucking up to the Cuban regime? Not just on the Honduras affair, but a general movement of the American attitude. The Cuban government has not changed, there is not yet a liberation.

Yoani Sánchez is a blogger braver than any of us need to be; she has every right to call her accusers ‘cowards’. Let us hope we keep our freedom, and she gains hers. Thanks to Harry’s Place for the link.

Target for Ridicule

Does anyone know an email address for Asif Zardari, President of Pakistan?

I think that bloggers outside Pakistan should be encouraged to email ribald remarks about the President and his ministers. It appears from news reports that he has banned anyone within Pakistan from ‘slander[ing] the political leadership’, on pain of up to 14 years imprisonment. This is in order to stem the tide of jokes to the President’s email. So it falls to the rest of us, living comfortably outside the writ of a Pakistani warrant, to fulfil the vital political purposes of satire.

The article repeats some of the jokes (thus giving them a rather wider audience than they would otherwise have had) and there are a couple of good ones there. Mmmmmmm, that gives me an idea. The email address given by the Guardian (via theyworkforyou.com) for Gordon Brown is birdc@parliament.uk. Anyone see where I am going?

Conceiving Freedom

It appears that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has difficulty conceiving of the idea of freedom of speech.

Ms Alibhai-Brown entitles her piece “Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited”, and on one level she is right. The classic example is of course that it does not include the freedom to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. Speech that directly causes harm, which would also include incitement to violence, can indeed be limited.

However that is not what Ms Alibhai-Brown means. She discusses the case of a man who was prosecuted for writing a completely fictional account of a violent, sexual incident towards women. No harm was done to anyone in the writing of that piece. Of course just to write that last sentence looks like a piece of weak satire. The story was pornographic, but that does not mean it harmed anyone. Recent evidence contradicts the baseless assumption that pornography increases the incidence of rape, in fact rape has tended to fall with increased availability of pornography. Therefore if anything this story is likely to reduce violence against women, it certainly has not been shown to be a threat.

Now I will be the first to agree that such a story is unpleasant, deeply unpleasant in fact. However I also know that there are people who gain sexual pleasure out of things that I find deeply unpleasant. Having met some of these, I found them perfectly decent people, who would be horrified by the idea that anyone would be genuinely hurt by their peccadilloes. I suppose others might not be so squeamish, but then I have known some people who were perfectly straight sexually but quite willing to spread mayhem and hurt, that is not confined to any one sexual identity. So overall I can see no prima facie case for censorship, yet this is Alibhai-Brown's first choice to censor, and she lets the case stand on its own, as if it is obvious and undeniable. That should show the danger of censorship, that it relies on opinion, usually the opinion of people who have little doubt they are right.

Ms Alibhai-Brown identifies some of the genuine, justified limits to freedom, “We accept libel and defamation laws … national security injunctions and establishment secrets …” which of course is justified by the direct harm that could otherwise result.

However she adds, with no apparent justification, “… and underpinning all that is a general understanding of what would be inappropriate and hateful if expressed in public”. There is no such general understanding, and neither should there be. Any such understanding would, necessarily, be a matter of opinion and politics, and give power to those who decide what can or cannot be said.

At various times in the piece Ms Alibhai-Brown heads off at right angles to her own thesis. Libel is already against the law, and in fact UK libel laws are often considered overly strict. The cases given in the piece are already covered by current laws.

The fact that Ms Alibhai-Brown herself wrote something hateful on the internet, and even now gets approached by people taking her to task for it is hardly an excuse for censorship. She does not deny that she said of Iraq “…there have been times when I have wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson…”, she just wants to shut up the bloggers who write about it, as it is causing her discomfort.

Freedom of speech does not just include the freedom to say what we don’t want to hear. It is that freedom. The freedom to say nice and fluffy things is trivial. It is only when there are people who don’t want something said that such freedom becomes relevant in any way. I don’t think Yasmin Alibhai-Brown can conceive of that freedom.

Hat tip Harry’s Place.

[Update: slight clarification]

[Further Update: A slightly different angle in my piece on Voice of the Resistance]