eurealist.co.uk

In the last post I suggested the reason that the EU wanted to introduce its own Charta of Fundamental Rights was had more to do with the advancement of the political powers of its own institutions than any real concern that human rights were deficient in most EU States.

In fact the introduction of the rights the EU politicians have chosen to elevate will create a greater sense of injustice in the very areas they claim we need rights in the first place. Although the Charta gives so called human rights it gives conflicting human rights. Because it is based on a particular left wing secular view of the world and grants one set of rights, it therefore demands the subjugation of other rights and these rights are contradictory. How for instance can the right of freedom of religion be equated with the right of freedom of sexual discrimination, if that is to be interpreted to mean that because every woman has the right to an abortion, every Doctor must assist her in obtaining an abortion, where every homosexual has the right to stay in any B&B even if it is owned an run by a confirmed Christian or Muslim fundamentalist.

In Britian we have over the years been gradually moving away from demanding adherence to any particular standpoint on human rights. We did after all have a revolution to settle the argument (put very simply) between the Catholic theory of divine right of kings and the realm of the Catholic church the protestant claim for the equality of all humans. Of course if you speak to a fundamentalist supporter of the Irish Free State you will get a different perspective, and it is not untrue to argue that Britian today is a revolutionary state based on the laws passed by an illegal government.

Even though all that happened a few hundred years ago it has had the sobering effect of teaching us that to challenge the basic beliefs of a group of people has a divisive affect on the community. So we have over the years been moving slowly but gradually in the direction of allowing as much freedom as possible to the individual to live their life by their chosen path as much as possible without the interference of the state or the interference of any others. This has been achieved by removing political influence and religious influence from a large sphere of human activity. Ok so a homosexual couple might not be welcome in a Catholic B&B and woman seeking an abortion might get no help from a Catholic doctor, but the state allowed both the homosexual and the abortion, so there was still choice which did not intrude on another’s conscience.

The concept of international Fundamental Rights has changed all of that, and now we are on an area we have already learned is detrimental to wellbeing of the community, an area that will set one set of claimants for rights against another set. We do not yet know exactly how this will develop, but we can already see evidence that the interpretation of those rights is forcing those with a contradicting religious conscience to make unpalatable choices. Can we therefore claim to have improved matters, I think not why for instance should a homosexual have the overriding right to demand entry into someone home just because that person runs a B&B when they know that person considers homosexuality as a sin, why would they even wish to. Of course one of the arguments put forward against these universal rights oddly emanated from homosexual hotels which now find they have open their doors to heterosexual couples.

I have exchanged views with left leaning apologists of the concept of international human rights, and have found that even those who are supposedly liberal supporters of tolerance and freedom have demonstrated an outstanding level of intolerance to the idea that religious conscience should have any place in a modern state, or in fact to the idea of religion in any form.

Of course any human right gifted by politicians can also be removed by politicians and chapter 52 of the EU`s charta of Fundamental Rights allows for just that; any right granted in the Charta can removed to “meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union.” This is clearly a contradiction of its own terms, if a right is fundamental then it is fundamental at all times and cannot be removed in the interest of the European Union. Contrast that to concept of basic Human Rights as understood in English Common Law these rights predate political institutions and therefore cannot be removed by politicians, in fact it is the politicians duty to uphold those rights.

Thus by codifying these basic Human Rights the politicians are attempting to claim power over them and by adding Social Human Rights to the list they are diluting the power of the original rights. If they at some stage decide to remove for instance say the right to housing what is to prevent them from removing the right to freedom of religion or the right to life if they are all brought put together as if they are all equal.