When Human Rights Overrides Majority Rule Dictatorship Must Follow Ian R Thorpe 14 January 2013

The Ministry Of Truth (where in Orwell's novel 1984 the past was constantly rewritten

In the wake of Barack Obama's greatest foreign policy triumph, a clich 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 Spring uprisings succeeded in ousting tyrants are further away from democracy than ever. Islamist fanatics have grabed power in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt and are preparing to by the sharia, their version of the law of God. They reject what they call 'man-made laws' the laws by which most nations live. For the same reason, Islamists reject democracy. It is a sham, they say, and an offence against God, the supreme ruler. In the 'enlightened' west the unconstrained powers of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the increasing focus of the United States Supreme Court on human rights are the secular equivalent. Progressives, those obsessive compulsive sociopaths who love to parade their assumptions of moral superiority around the world the think that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court which enforces it are sacred. They believe these rights should be forced upon people everywhere, regardless of how anyone votes, regardless of how the diverse

peoples of the world have evolved socially. Human rights are the progressive lefts own version of sharia law. In Iran, the Guardian Council of senior clergy makes the final decision about whether anything passed by the parliament is compatible with Islamic law. In Europe, the ECHR has the same absolute authority over the decisions of all the member parliaments, including our own British Parliament. I am not sure how far the powers of the U.S. Supreme Court reach but not as far as the European Human Rights court I suspect. Where the elected assembly is just window dressing, checks and balances intended to prevent the abuse of power are meaningless. If the punishments handed out by this allegedly liberal and democratic body do not (yet) involve stoning or the amputation of body parts, the principle is the same: "We", the priesthood of human rights lawyers appears to say, "are in sole possession of the truth and will decide what is good and bad: no other power may stand against us." Before becoming Prime Minister, David Cameron was suspicious of the human rights theocrats. The moment he stepped into his official residence however power started to corrupt him, he became part of the global elite that while far removed from the world ordinary people live in claims to know better than those ordinary people how they ought to live their lives. In his election campaign Cameron promised to set up a commission on a British Bill of Rights, the idea being to bring home human rights in Britain and place them under the supervision of British courts and British government. He soon started to back of that position in order to earn a pat on the head from other EU leaders and UN bureaucrats. Now we have a situation in which the ECHR can rule that Britain must give prisoners the vote. No major political party and no large section of public opinion agrees. The British Parliament voted overwhelmingly against this measure. Yet, under our present relationship with Europe with which the traitor Blair saddled us, there is absolutely nothing that our elected representatives can do about it. In fact because the ECHR is controlled by left wing elitists who are all in favour of a global government we find those convicted of and imprisoned for serious crimes have more "rights" than hard working, law abiding citizens.

This is the inevitable result of allowing bureaucracy to usurp democracy. I have seen many progressives talking about when democracy fails (as in the votes in several US states to prohibit same sex marriage) the central government must "step in and do what is right." But who decided what is right? The unelected bureaucrats? We could call such thinking the usurpation of parliamentary sovereignty. Nobody wants to remove human rights from our law and as believers in democracy we should welcome the fact that the courts will sometimes reach decisions that challenge the will of the majority in their efforts to protect minority interests. Having said that however elected legislators as representatives of the people must have some power of democratic override. In Britain's principal Court of Justice, the Old Bailey, there words are inscribed above the portal: "The welfare of the people is the paramount law." GEDDIT progressives? the people; not 'some of the people'. It does not say "The welfare of the crims, peedos,dole scroungers minorities, retards, dope heads, crackheads and dickheads in the paramount law (they'd need bigger doors) but the people as in We The People. And who can better determine what constitutes the welfare of the people than the majority of the people. Not the one per cent of elitist, morally superior self styled progressives or the ten per cent of deluded useful idiots who help advance the agenda but all the people. Because when human rights law starts to curtail the rights of some in order to extend the rights of others we are no longer talking about democracy but tyranny. The tyrannophiliac left may delude themselves that utopia could be gained under a benign, Marxist totalitarian global government but that only shows they are less well informed than the so called low information voters they so despise. It does not really take much reading to find out what life was and is like under Stalin and Brezhnev, Mao Tse Tung, Erich Honeker, Fidel Castro, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, Mobutu, Ceaucescu, and almost every other Marxist leader anywhere. Even the most benign, like Tito in Yugoslavia, were not exactly pussy-cats. What power then can stand against this elite and defend the rights of individuals to be individual. What organisation will resist calls for the kind of diversity that

forced people in advanced societies to accept mores and norms alien to their own culture in the name of equality while simultaneously trying to suppress the kind of diversity that allows one person to believe in a universe created by a divine power and another to believe the shared reality we live in is actually a computer simulation of a cosmos. At present, there is none. At least in the United States, where the Supreme Court is extremely strong, it is possible, though not easy, for the Congress to amend the constitution and thus the court's powers. (The necessity of such a clause become clear when we learn that the Supreme Court in the mid-19th century upheld slavery in the US on the grounds that it was a property right. It took the Civil War to sort things out.)Whether the current US Congress, which like the administration has demonstrated it has little respect for the constitution, would take such a step is debatable. There is no last-resort ability for elected bodies to intervene with the ECHR, it is all powerful. Although there is something called "the margin of appreciation" which allows the court to give discretion to member states in how they apply its judgements, this discretion is bestowed by the court itself, and cannot be expanded by the members. The 47 judges, some of them from countries such as Russia, Albania and Azerbaijan, where the phrase "human rights" attracts hysterical laughter or an expression of puzzlement are, in the politics of the last say, our dictators. They are their own overseeing authority. As dictators are free to do, they take their time in dealing with challenges to their omnipotence. The court has a backlog of more than 150,000 cases.

An impression of life in a totalitarian prison state by the Russian street artist known only as P183 (great link to see some of his art)

Where is all this going, you might well ask. Several times in recent months Barack Hussein Osama, the quintessential European has warned Britain against distancing itself from the EU, spoken in favour of integrating all of the sovereign states that make up the Union into a single European Superstate, and called for Turkey and other non European nations (including Syria and Egypt!) to be granted EU membership. Obma is totally committed to the cause of a 'progressive' scientific dictatorship as are joint EU Presidents, the former Maoist turned Federalist Jose Maunel Barroso (who is on record as saying those sceptical about the Federal Europe project are dangerous)are and uberbureaucrat Herman von Rompuy. Why are all these leaders who share socialist leanings and a taste for living the very high life at the expense of hard working taxpayers so very keen on ever bigger government presiding over ever bigger supra national communities? Could this drive to abolish nation states and local cultures and replace sovereign governments with an unelected bureaucracy be part of a plan to create the 'scientific dictatorship', the global meritocracyadvocated by politicians like Barack Hussein Obama and Tony Blair and stretching back to luminaies such as novelist H G Wells, the Fankfurt Kulturkampf movement Vannavar Bush - a leader of the Manhattan project, Bertrand Russell and Herman Kahn (scroll down the linked page) a leading thinker behind the shift from public leaders to "action intellectuals" and an inspiration for the film Dr. Strangelove and that US President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech? (In case people question the authenticity of my scientific dictatorship link, books have been written on the topic). Interestingly this 'scientific dictatorship' when we read the words of its strongest advocates, is not about hard sciences in which developments are suggested by empirical evidence but soft sciences such as psychology, media manipulation of public opinion and even more disturbingly ... ... wait for it ... ... EUGENICS (go on, Google or Bing "scientific dictatorship" "eugenics" and see what interesting results you get.)

The two minutes hate from Orwell's 1984

RELATED POSTS:
New Renewable Energy Scam Attacks Our Human Rights Aristotle, Obama and the death of Mainstream Media Who'll Put The Total In Totalitarian The Agenda: How An International Elite Are Destroying Sovereign Nations George Orwell, Prophet of political correctness, enemy of the Left, Socialist The Polarisation Of Society: Captive Minds And Intellectual Cowardice Champagne Socialists Europe, Europe Uber Alles Ten 4 Ten (poem)