Human Rights: the decline and (nearly) the end of in the West

Human Rights is a potentially vast subject including ideas such as equal pay for equal work between the sexes, the freedom to change religion, the right to join associations to defend interests and many other ideas. Above all there is freedom of speech, a fundamental idea of Human Rights and a vital component of Western civilisation. It has been considered vital for about 2500 years with many biblical references to this subject which was also discussed by Greek philosophers in depth. Sadly, freedom of speech is under attack in the West and has mostly disappeared with the notable exception of the USA with its guarantee of the First Amendment of the Constitution despite the woke cancel culture efforts of virtue signallers. When saying that freedom of speech is disappearing, this does not mean that it is impossible to criticise politicians in the West; fortunately, that still exists, but on a whole range of issues, suggesting anything other than that of the established woke orthodoxy is now punished by job losses, social ostracism and in many cases criminal prosecution. Most of the West is now a very long way from the principle that any speech should be allowed except defamation, but that concerns wrong facts not opinions.

Exceptions limiting freedom of speech had in fact developed in recent times in various Western countries concerning incitement to violence, defence secrets, copyrights, patents and more controversially so less widely, subjects such as inciting racial hatred, pornography or holocaust denial. Some of these limitations can be argued as justified and absolute freedom of speech is probably not realistic, but as a basic principle it must be defended. Furthermore, Article 19 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” For various reasons outside the scope of the subject, what the UN says can often be criticised and many countries ignore this Article, but few truly believing in Western civilisation would disagree with it. The problem now is that many Western politicians and media hardly believe in the concept of freedom of speech and the comparison of the situation today with only 10 or 15 years ago is astonishing.

Yet it is precisely the West that has the best record over Human Rights where freedom of speech has been used precisely to guarantee those Rights. As a historical example, the West abolished before anyone else since freedom of expression and concepts of equality of treatment of humans meant that is was possible to debate what was wrong and how it should be changed. It is in other civilisations where slavery still exists in much of the world, but is ignored by Western woke. Human Rights violations in the West are insignificant compared to the treatment of women, homosexuals or atheists in certain Islamic societies despite the deafening silence of LBGTQWERTY lobby. The Western woke pays almost no attention to the Chinese government treatment of Muslims, Tibetans, those in forced slave labour camps or with unacceptable views according to the ruling Communist Party. Western cultural Marxists blame all the world’s problems on Western white, heterosexual, middle aged or older men as seen in the hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome where the former President remains banned from the social media, unlike the Talibans and the Ayatollahs who are allowed to publish their genocidal opinions.

The origin of this deplorable situation is essentially the result of a self-hate/guilt philosophy, something not new and often related to mental illnesses. For psychological or psychoanalytical reasons, some people hate themselves, their families, their jobs and by extension, their life and society around. This self-hatred is translated by the view that Western civilisation is to blame for all the world’s problems so in climate where the excessively doubtful cause of this supposed catastrophe is said to be man-made CO2, the fact that most CO2 emanates from China and India and not the West is ignored. With Covid-19, pointing out the Chinese origin of the virus is racist so even stating facts is unacceptable. These concern recent events, but historically, many European ‘intellectuals’ were so filled with self-hate that many used to prefer Stalin’s communism and millions of deaths to Western liberal capitalism even after Stalin was denounced by the Soviet rulers themselves in the 1950s. Others preferred fascism before World War 2 since Mussolini got the trains to run on time and Hitler got autobahns built. In the 1970s some so-called Western thinkers preferred Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ in China leading to between 35 and 100 million deaths depending on the source rather than supposed US and Western imperialism in Korea and Vietnam.

Many of the 1930s fascists and communists were at prestigious universities and higher education today is in the forefront of this self-hate/guilt philosophy. Culturally Marxist professors spread their poisonous ideas to young people who are easy to influence and protected from the realities of life. As political and economic Marxism did not succeed, the cultural version aims to destroy Western societal norms: destroying family structures (gender fluidity), rewriting history (removing statues) or using social networks to ‘fight’ climate change or any perceived inequalities related to age, sex, social class, wealth, skin colour, sexual orientation or other theoretical handicap. This is backed up by a cancel culture where those in disagreement are to be silenced, publicly and socially ostracised and lose their jobs. Try to get a research grant for studying climate change if you believe that climate is changing naturally and always has and not because of human created CO2. Try to get a job in a public institution

1

today if you believe the is abnormal and transsexuality even more so. This intolerance of opinions exists in most media, private companies, public institutions, universities, charities and now the police and armed forces. In private, many people do not believe in what they say, but feel obliged to publicly express certain views just like in totalitarian regimes. Publicly expressed to keep rulers happy is not new; historically, what was said to Monarchs and Emperors was what they wanted to hear rather than what those saying actually believed. In the 20th century, this continued in dictatorships where officials in Stalin’s Soviet Union celebrated reaching tractor production objectives when they knew that the figures were untrue. Those expelled from Chinese cities to work in fields and live in remote villages under Mao’s policy announced how happy they were. In Hitler’s Germany, military generals proclaimed how it was essential to use scarce logistics to transport Jews to death camps rather than for troop movements or helping injured soldiers get treatment.

If political correctness is not new, the modern Western version started in the 1980s with multiculturalist theory. This suggests since several different cultures exist in a specific society, there is no common or dominant culture and by the 1990s, cultural relativism suggested that all cultures are valid and it is racist to suggest otherwise. This is fundamentally wrong since diversity does not prevent a common and dominant culture which is essential for societal cohesion; to accept all cultures are valid would mean recognising cannibalism or female genital mutilation. However, in the (reasonable) attempt at the time to avoid discrimination and to promote minority inclusion, it was suggested that people should have ‘first’ names not ‘Christian’ names and ‘Happy Christmas’ could become ‘Happy Holidays.’ These relatively unimportant examples might or not be seen as an improvement, but today the debate has gone much further and spread to all aspects of daily life. Language has become artificial and ugly with endless debates about inclusive grammar when speaking and writing. Everything said or written becomes potentially discriminatory; it is an offence to use incorrect gender pronouns when addressing transgenders considering themselves to be of a different gender than their name and appearance suggests. In the name of equality for transsexuals, men are placed in women’s prisons or hospital wards if they consider themselves women and in the UK, a man raped some women prisoners. In sports, men claiming to be women compete in women only events and usually win, but the defeated women concerned are so frightened of laws that they say nothing or only complain under strict conditions of anonymity. The psychological consequences of being frightened to speak is seen in totalitarian regimes every day.

Biblical descriptions of homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ might now be considered as excessive by many, but is quoting biblical texts now to be considered as illegal homophobia? Australian rugby player and fundamentalist Christian Israel Folau was banned from playing in Australia because he considers that “hell awaits” all homosexuals, (with adulterers, fornicators, thieves, atheists, drunks and liars). Like all opinions, the issue is not whether one agrees with these views, but whether they should be allowed to be expressed. In many sports, BLM posters exist and most players ‘bend the knee’ before matches, but suggesting (obviously) that White Lives also Matter is considered racist and someone lost a job in England recently because of saying so. If one considers that children are better with a mother and a father of biologically different sexes and not the same sex nor claiming to be another sex, is this illegal homophobia/transphobia?

Since phobias are irrational anxieties and mental illnesses, there are now laws against illnesses, a form of thoughtcrime of which Orwell would have been proud. In the Soviet Union those criticising the regime were sent to psychiatric hospitals and for those feeling that this is could happen in the West, it should be remembered that French populist politician Marine Le Pen was ordered by the courts to undergo psychiatric analysis when republishing atrocities from Isis. Phobia laws are very recent and the oldest, islamophobia, was only created about 15 years ago to stifle debate about Islam, the idea coming from the Muslim Brotherhood, an illegal terrorist organisation in many countries including Egypt. The fact that there are no laws about other religions makes the concept of Islamophobia even less acceptable. Various European governments allow Jihadists who left for Syria to be accepted back home, but prosecute those with controversial opinions about Islam, or refuse them entry to the country. US political correctness meant that any reference to ‘Islamist terrorism’ was removed from FBI investigation vocabulary under ex-President Obama so one such attack on a military base had to be ludicrously described as ‘workplace violence.’ In Sweden, a man aged 75 is facing 2 years in prison for describing Islam as a “fascist ideology” after citing numerous references in the Koran about killing infidels.

An alternative to avoid the problem is self-censorship like in totalitarian dictatorships where certain issues are not discussed and politicians not criticised. Most US media refuse to publish satire from Danish cartoonists or ‘Charlie Hebdo’ in France which led to violent protests and murders by offended Muslims; a French teacher has just been decapitated by an Islamic terrorist for discussing the cartoons in his class. The West has gone dystopian concerning freedom of speech since citing true facts is no longer a sufficient defence, absolutely contrary to the basic rule about defamation. In Munich someone was recently found guilty of ‘hateful speech’ when posting on social networks a World War 2 photo of Nazis meeting a Muslim religious leader in 1943 who helped to create

2

the Bosnian SS Muslim Division responsible for massacres of Serbian Jews and Christians. Former President Trump’s retweeting of videos of Islamists killing opponents and destroying statues of the Virgin Mary led to ‘universal condemnation’ because the original authors of the videos are members of the extreme right neo-fascist political group Britain First. “Don’t kill the messenger” is the obvious response! If the logic of preventing publication of atrocities by Islamists is to prevent the spread of violence then it is too late as the publications are already online and those tempted by this type of activity know where to look. If the objective is to prevent (unacceptable) revenge hate crimes on Muslims, then it should be illegal to show documentaries about Nazi concentration camps or Stalin’s Gulags as it might lead to revenge hate crimes against Germans or Russians.

In 1977 in the USA, constitutional freedom of speech was precisely the justification for allowing Neo-Nazis with their odious banners proclaiming ‘Hitler was right’ and ‘Hitler should have finished the job’ to march through Skokie, a Chicago suburb with a large Jewish population including survivors of Nazi concentration camps. The comparison is seen 40 years later in 2017, when ‘anti-fascists’ (applauded by almost all US media) prevented Neo- Nazis from demonstrating in Charlottesville, Virginia against removing statues of Confederate War leaders despite court approval for the demonstration precisely under the same principle of free speech. The obvious irony is anti- fascists acting as fascists censoring opinions. The removal of statues and book burning has become frequent, including the Bible and even Tintin, Lucky Luke and Asterix in Canada because of ‘stereotyping.’ This is just like in Nazi Germany. It might be that some of these statues or books relate to another time and have little place in modern society, but the point is that they reflected a different time and if indeed there is some agreement about their removal, then the offending item in question should be placed in a museum with an educational context. At the very least there needs to be a debate and wide consensus about this since it is now suggested that Lincoln or Washington be replaced in the USA or Rhodes, Nelson or even Churchill in the UK or Colbert, Voltaire and Ferry in France. Perhaps the Bible should be replaced because of about sexual minorities?

This intolerance of different views prevents the expression of (perhaps) minority opinions, but which were in fact majority opinions until recently. Compulsory diversity training in both public and private organisations requires the obligatory use of inclusive language accompanied by psychological analysis of anti-social behaviour, a straight copy from the Soviet Union. People with non-woke opinions are de-platformed by groups claiming to be anti-fascist. Western universities create ‘safe spaces’ where officials check what is said so that students feel ‘emotionally comfortable’ and not challenged with ‘micro aggressions’ if confronted with views with which they might disagree. Inside these spaces, students and in some cases their professors can meet and agree on everything. Many now feel that physical violence should be used against ‘offensive’ opinions and some consider that it is automatically racist for any white politician to criticise any political views of any ‘politician of colour.’ A black French politician recently suggested that no white person can be correct in his views on compared to anyone black or Arab. This is true racism since white people are not to be treated in the same way as black and is seen with the hideous critical race theory where white privilege is said to lead to perpetual black oppression. It is hardly surprising that social consensus in the USA is falling apart where every issue becomes a matter of identity, judged by intersectional references to colour, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion.

Freedom of speech is being replaced by freedom from speech which some people find offensive, but by definition, freedom of speech means precisely that some people will be offended. Journalists reporting the views of controversial figures are now threatened with legal consequences and those with the opinions lose their jobs as has happened to the well-known author Professor David Starkey. His comment that slavery was not a genocide since so “many damn blacks survived” is indeed offensive, but was made in the context that there were survivors and the slave owners’ intention was obviously not to kill all slaves since they made money by selling them. Even the word ‘offence’ is considered too high a threshold so some laws make it illegal where victims suffer from ‘hurt feelings.’ Guilt is not even based on an objective standard whether ‘reasonable people’ might have their feelings hurt, but whether the so-called victims consider it to be the case. Some recent UK legislation is written this way, contrary to the basic principle of Human Rights (and the Rule of Law) that laws should be objective and neutral and not subjective. Although there was a decision not to prosecute, London Metropolitan Police felt obliged to investigate UK Prime Minister Johnson for hate speech when comparing women who wear Burqas to “letterboxes” despite the fact that he was criticising various European countries who ban the wearing of this type of clothing in public. Oxford University now bans the Christian Union at clubs and activities week for new students in case those of other religions feel ‘excluded’ or ‘offended’ and this type of behaviour is rife in other institutions.

Another attack on free speech concerns supposedly fake news which is now controlled by government officials in many Western countries. German law requires social media platforms to censor their users since media companies are now obliged to delete or block online ‘criminal offences’ within 24 hours of a user complaint regardless of whether the content is accurate or not. Is this happening in Iran, China or in Western democracies? Have rumours and disinformation never previously existed? Western countries are becoming like totalitarian

3

dictatorships who do not welcome debate and justify their censorship by references to public security or social harmony. There is indeed a lot of nonsense on the social media, but communicating nonsense is not new either. The European Court of Human Rights judgement in 2018 sums up the situation of freedom of speech today. An Austrian woman was found to have acted illegally when publishing an opinion that “exceeds permissible limits of free discussion.” Her ‘crime’ was to suggest (as part of a seminar on the history of religions) that a sexual relationship between the Prophet Mohammed, then aged 56, with one of his wives Aisha then aged 9, would today be considered as paedophilia. For the moment cultural Marxism seems to be winning and one wonders whether it is too late for the necessary counterattack to defend Western notions of free speech? Traditional expressions such as “I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” or “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” are now wrong.

As this article is written, several major private companies have decided to boycott the newly launched GB News for advertising purposes because GB News aims to be ‘right leaning’ alternative to the horribly woke BBC and Sky News in the UK. The same has happened to one or 2 media outlets in France with editorial lines that are not mainstream. The minimum requirement for public service broadcasters or media paid by public funds should be that different views be heard. This is almost never the case on climate and the bias is even measurable. During the Brexit debate, French public media almost never invited anyone in favour of Brexit to be interviewed in current affairs debates and channel 5 broadcast 6 programmes about Brexit and invited 24 out of 24 guests to speak against it. The woke bias of the BBC is internationally recognised, but the same point can be made about many other publicly paid broadcasters in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Western countries.

On a positive note and as seen with the GB News in the Uk, CNEWS in France, Sky News in Australia, Fox in the USA and other examples, at least some people out of step with current orthodoxy still exist in Western countries. Any opinion should be allowed except where the law prevents it and the fightback in the UK is seen with the proposed law now being discussed in Parliament that precisely legislates in that way. This is a good move and at least prevents those with legal opinions being banned, but it ignores the question about whether the laws about freedom of speech are themselves correct. In another UK move, higher education authorities are to be placed under legal duties not to de-platform those with controversial views and the UK government has announced the end of compulsory unconscious bias training in the public sector. Complaints about criticism of Meghan Markle by journalist Piers Morgan were dismissed in the name of freedom of expression so there is some hope, but all of this is nothing like enough. What is required is a total rethinking of what should or should not be banned and the basic rule should be freedom of expression with very limited exceptions clearly justified on specific grounds such as imminent danger of death. One can imagine preventing clear incitements to kill or mentioning defence secrets that might lead to people being killed, but apart from these examples and slander or libel about wrong facts, there should be no restrictions. What is absolutely certain is the fact that some people don’t like an opinion and feel hurt or offended by it should never be enough to prevent these opinions in Western societies.

Paranoia not being part of this writer’s personality, it is not suggested that Western countries have become like communist or fascist regimes since as said at the beginning, it is still possible to criticise the politicians. However, trends are ominous and it is beyond time to take a stand on this issue. Indirectly, perhaps a consequence (and only good point) about the US fiasco in Afghanistan might be that the woke supporters of President Biden and his ghastly government start to wonder whether they were right. This might seem unconnected with the debate, but once certitudes disappear on one issue, perhaps they might on others?

4