buzzsawmonkey sums it up
Here is a brief essay that buzzsawmonkey posted as a comment in a recent guest post by huckfunn, namely American Sovereignty Under Attack By U.S. State Department:
“Human rights,” and “human rights” language, have increasingly infiltrated domestic political discourse over the last 40-odd years.
It began when the Civil Rights Movement, having been hijacked by the Marxists, separatists and Islamists, began demanding rights over and above the civil rights that King and the original movement had been rightly seeking.
It continued when the gay-rights movement, which could not lay claim to “sexual preference or orientation” being a suspect classification under Constitutional law (as “race” was, and is), began demanding recognition, and concessions, on a “human rights” basis.
It has continued since the Islamist movement, which took its playbook entirely from the gay-rights movement (including adoption of the bogus “-ophobia” locution), began demanding special rights over and above the freedom of religion which everyone enjoys.
buzzsawmonkey sums it up very well indeed.
The hard-left origin and pro-jihadi agenda of the ‘human rights’ movement
Now for some background on just how the Marxists got everyone started on this spurious ‘human rights’ rhetoric, and just a few examples of how the tranzi-progressive/jihadist convergence has been using ‘human rights’ mudslinging to further the jihadi agenda.
I have previously blogged about the true origins and purpose of Amnesty International in The True Genesis of Amnesty International: It’s not what you might think!:
And if you have ever suspected that Amnesty International is anything but politically neutral, despite its stated policy of representing “prisoners of conscience” from both the left and the right, you will learn exactly how and why your suspicions are correct.
According to Veliz:
The Cold War experience would also have confirmed Münzenberg’s conviction that waged urbi et orbi, such campaigns would be ignored inside a communist world undisturbed by a free press and public opinion, but would undermine the moral status of policies advanced by the United States and its allies.
Any organization, especially one that was founded on corrupt principles to begin with, is liable to become even more corrupt over time. It can become a magnet for self-serving, greedy, malevolent, and in every way unsavory characters, along with some outright psychopaths and sickos.
It is no surprise that organizations such as Amnesty International that supported the Communist agenda during the Cold War, currently use use the same tactics to support the jihadi agenda now that the Muslim world is our primary enemy. All the while, employees of such organizations enrich themselves and promote their own careers.
- Why Amnesty International is a fraud and deserves NO support
- Nazi fetishist at Human Rights Watch
(no surprise, considering that HRW is a George Soros-funded agency)
‘Human rights’ rhetoric is a fig leaf for jihadism and shari’a
During the Cold War, Amnesty International and similar organizations knew that their protests against abuses on the part of Communist-bloc countries were empty and ineffectual posturing, intended only to give themselves a veneer of impartiality, that would be ignored within territory controlled by Communist governments. They also knew that their protests against non-Communist governments would do immense damage to the free world. They were correct on both counts.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, ‘human rights’ NGOs and activists have successfully repurposed themselves, but their agenda against Judaeo-Christian civilization remains unchanged. They know full well that their protests against the truly evil practices taking place within Islamic countries are an empty show that will be ignored by the authorities and will have no effect in slowing the spread of jihadism and shari’a. On the other hand, their exaggerated protests against even the most minimal efforts on the part of non-Muslim individuals, governments, and communities to protect themselves against jihadism and creeping shari’a are likely to have a crippling impact on the survival of the non-Muslim world.
If you aren’t visiting Jihad Watch every day, you’re missing a lot of valuable information about what is going on in the world:
“…reconciliation with the Taliban will encourage conservative Islamic clerics and hard-line Islamists, including the moderate elements of the Taliban, to push for the implementation of a harsh justice system that would directly contradict the human-rights guarantees enshrined in the current Afghan Constitution.”
Too late. The human rights guarantees enshrined in the current Afghan Constitution are already hollow and subject to Sharia. Just ask Abdul Rahman, the celebrated Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity a few years ago.
…So, politics matter more than principles?
Nine municipalities in Catalonia, including Barcelona, have banned the use of face-covering Islamic veils in public or are considering doing so.
Human rights group Amnesty International had called on the Catalan deputies to reject the motion.
“Any wide-ranging ban will violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who choose to wear a full-face veil as an expression of their identity or beliefs,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s expert on discrimination in Europe.
“Women should be free to choose what and what not to wear. This is their right under international human rights law.”
While you’re at it, tell that to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. And while you’re at it, tell it to the women who have been harassed, threatened, raped, and subjected to beatings and honor killings in the Muslim world for choosing not to wear the veil, or for not veiling enough. Or are those countries “more equal than others” in being allowed to state the norms of behavior for their societies?
Dhimmitude, cowardice, craven opportunism, and blind Leftist America-hatred. An update on this story, “Embattled Gender Analyst Leaves Post at Amnesty,” from Women’s eNews, n.d. (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):
Gita Sahgal calls her entry into the world of journalism “sort of accidental,” but her most recent news appearances have been entirely on purpose.
On Feb. 7, the Sunday Times of London published her sharp critique of Amnesty International’s support for former Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg. She went public, the article says, because her internal warnings had been ignored.
Amnesty, the nearly 50-year-old rights group founded to speak on behalf of prisoners of conscience, has hailed Begg as a human rights defender, hosted him on speaking tours and included him in a meeting with politicians at Downing Street.
Sahgal has called him “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban.” She points to passages in his 2006 autobiography, Enemy Combatant, where he describes moving to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to “live in an Islamic state–one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world.” He also ran a bookstore in Birmingham, England, that sold works by known al-Qaida mentor Abdullah Azzam.
The clueless dhimmis at AI have no idea, I’m sure, that every jihad being waged around the world today is cast by the jihadis as defensive — in the absence of a caliph, an offensive jihad would be illegal according to Sharia. Thus Osama bin Laden, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and all the rest have explained the most vile acts of mass murder as “defensive jihad.” And that is apparently just fine with Amnesty International.
“Row over support for ‘defensive jihad,'” by Hasan Suroor in The Hindu, April 2 (thanks to Twostellas):
LONDON: Leading South Asian rights campaigners have accused Amnesty International of “undermining” the rights movement, especially the campaign against sex and gender discrimination, by working with extremist — often misogynist — groups engaged in what they claim is “defensive jihad”.
The row follows remarks by Claudio Cordone, its secretary-general, that “defensive jihad” was not “antithetical” to human rights. He made the comments in response to a Global Petition from rights activists questioning Amnesty’s alliance with Cageprisoners, founded by Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo Bay prisoner and dubbed “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban” by a former Amnesty official.
Also, be sure to read this comment. It is too long to reprint here in its entirety, and excerpting it would not do it justice.
‘Human rights’ as a tool to muzzle the counterjihad movement
This is from the redoubtable Canadian journalist and blogger, Ezra Levant:
It’s been months since I’ve given a report about the nuisance SLAPP lawsuits that Canada’s illiberal censors have unleashed against me. As longtime readers will know, I was targeted by Canada’s Orwellian human rights industry back in 2006 when they falsely prosecuted me for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a magazine, and I dared to fight back instead of go meekly.
Those bullies dropped the cartoon prosecution against me (after 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers dined out on me for 900 days), leaving me with $100,000 in legal bills. (Thank you for helping me pay that bill, dear reader.) But then the most aggressive members of the human rights industry proceeded to punish me by filing over 20 law society complaints and five defamation suits against me, which have been proceeding ever since.
Today’s story in the National Post about one of those lawsuits seems like a good opportunity to give an update.
Warman must hand over his neo-Nazi records
The Post story is headlined “Lawyer who launched libel suit against Ezra Levant ordered to hand over computer”, and that’s a pretty accurate summary of what happened this week. In brief, an Ontario judge has ordered Richard Warman, a former Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) staffer and Canada’s most prolific censor, to hand over a copy of his laptop computer to an independent forensic expert, who will search it for evidence relevant to Warman’s Nazi activities…
Now that the ‘race card’ is overdrawn…
…watch out for the 'human rights' card.
The 'race card' has been overplayed for so long that people can recognize its tattered edges and dog-eared corners. It no longer works so well as a club to hit Tea Partiers, antijihadists, and other non-leftists over the head with, because too many people start laughing whenever it appears.
The 'human rights' card is still in active circulation, and it's our job to put a stop to it. Whenever you hear 'human rights' rhetoric used by anyone, especially in the presence of the '-ophobia' meme, be suspicious and inquire further.
True, people sometimes use ‘human rights’ rhetoric to complain about a genuine injustice against someone. That’s a good opportunity for us to introduce a more accurate term into the debate, such as injustice or cruelty or tyranny or violation of Constitutional rights – whatever terminology is best suited to the circumstances.
Generally speaking, the term ‘human rights’ is used as a weapon against Judaeo-Christian civilization and a weapon to advance the tranzi-progressive/jihadist coalition. Whenever we see that, it’s time for us to call it out as a leftist code-word and refuse to give it any further legitimacy.
Update: More comments by buzzsawmonkey
Apologies in advance for the post-pimp/repetition, but my first post in the thread referenced at the top of this one bears re-reading:
At the risk of repeating myself, I would remind people that “human rights” are, by their nature, antithetical to the concept of liberty as enshrined in the American Constitution.
“Human rights” are dispensations doled out by the government to the people. The “human rights” view of the world is that government is the source of, and grantor of, rights. What this means, in practice, is that the government can grant or withhold “human rights” at its pleasure, and may give “human rights” to those groups it finds worthy on the basis of the government’s own criteria.
The US Constitution is fundamentally different. It presumes that human beings have liberty—which is to say, citizens can do whatever they want except as their actions must be circumscribed by the government for the common good and maintenance of public order. To ensure that this circumscription is as minimal as possible, and that liberty is therefore as great as possible, the powers granted to the government are limited and enumerated—and civil rights, enforced by the rule of law, grant citizens rights against the government to ensure that the government does not exceed the limitations of its charter.
Thus, “human rights” presume that government is all-powerful, and grants rights to the people—or withholds them—at its will. The Constitution presumes that people are free, that government is limited, and that such restrictions on people’s freedom as are necessary are further limited by the safeguards of civil rights.
Any attempt to overlay a “human rights” model on the liberty and civil rights enshrined in the Constitution is an attack on the Constitution and the very idea of the United States.