I’m a great admirer of the counterjihad writer Anne Marie Waters. She’s one of the few people brave enough to speak out about the dangers of Islamic Shariah law and is a doughty fighter for the concept of freedom of speech.
In this article she finds fault, in my view with a significant degree of justification, with the whole concept of international human rights. Many of our current human rights treaties and laws were brought in following the carnage of World War II and were aimed at preventing the sort of genocide that characterised that terrible conflict. Unfortunately what has happened is that these laws and treaties that were put in to help the oppressed have ended up aiding and abetting the oppressors. It’s a difficult question for many but maybe now is the time to ask awkward questions about whether universal human rights as expressed in the various legal instruments is still a valid concept? Maybe it’s also a time to ask whether the relatively recent concept of international human rights law is impeding the task of civilised nations defending themselves from those who wish to destroy them?
Anne Marie Waters said:
I don’t like it when I disagree with someone who I truly think is heroic, especially on such fundamental matters, but I must, because these points need to be made.
I spoke recently at the Dangerous Words conference in Stockholm, an event to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the passing of free speech protection laws in Sweden. One of the other speakers at the conference was Hamed Abdel-Samed, who gave a fantastic speech that revealed just how brave he is. Hamed is a German citizen of Egyptian descent who lives under constant security (most events I attend now have security; on a few occasions for myself). He has openly condemned the behaviour of Mohammed and said that the actions of ISIS are justified in Islam. His is a much needed voice and I sincerely hope the world continues to hear it. But there are two points in particular at which Hamed and I part ways, and this is simply because of the gulf that exists between our perspectives. During his speech, Hamed emphasised the need to distinguish between ideology and people, as well as urging adherence to the concept of human rights.
On the latter point, I’m about to say something controversial, but from where I’m sitting, human rights are the problem, not the solution.
I mentioned a gulf in perspective and it’s time we were honest about this. An ex-Muslim will approach the issue of Islam very differently to a native European (yes, I did say “native”). For the majority of non-Muslim Europeans specifically, Islam is new – it’s not ours. We see what it does in countries around the world, and what it is already doing in ours, and many of us don’t want any more of it. This will mean either stopping or severely restricting migration from Muslim majority countries, that is the reality. We shouldn’t constantly need reminding, but it seems that we do, that an individual Muslim is a human being who should be treated on their own merit, but an individual Muslim is not a concern. Millions of Muslims is a concern, because millions of Muslims means Islam. That is the harsh truth. Human rights however dictate that simply by virtue of being human, everyone has the de facto right to come live in Europe – regardless of what they bring with them.
Like most internationalist notions, the UN is the world’s main pusher of human rights. The impact of these rights (and doubtless the aim) is the even further erosion of the nation-state. If a person from Sierra Leone has the same rights in Germany as a German citizen, then what is the point of being a German citizen? There isn’t one, instead there is a gaping hole in the German nation-state.
Germany is the home of the German people. Britain is the home of the British people. Europe is our home, but our leaders now tell us that everyone, no matter who they are, can simply stroll in to our home and stay here. The reason they can do this is because they are human. It shouldn’t need saying but apparently it does; ISIS is human. Jihadis are human. Rapists are human. Every murder, terror attack, genocide that has ever taken place, has been at the hands of humans. Humans are not saints, and nor are we “all equal”. Some will want a society held together by cruelty and oppression, others will seek freedom. That is simply how it is.
On the second point, while I appreciate the sentiment in theory, it doesn’t work in reality. The separation of ideology from people isn’t practicable; it again presents people as innocents, and ideologies alone as harmful. But that doesn’t make any sense. Ideas do not exist independently of people. It is people who give birth to ideas and it is people who put them in to practice. While an idea may be repulsive – such as burying a person up to their chest and throwing stones at their head until they die – the idea itself will cause no harm unless there are people willing to throw the stones. The Koran may contain verses urging the killing of non-believers, but if I put a Koran on a shelf and leave it there, it will cause no damage. It is only when people pick up the book and implement its commands that the problems begin.
Therefore, in order to keep these ideas, and their implementation, out of European societies, we cannot allow mass permanent immigration from Muslim majority countries.
Read the rest of this article here:
This is a thought provoking article and forces us to reconsider whether the internationalist post WWII human rights settlement has either worked to protect those who are genuinely being oppressed, or has not worked. We should also consider whether these laws and treaties that pertain to human rights have had unforeseen and unintended consequences such as sheilding and protecting Islamic hate preachers and jihadis. The article also makes the reader wonder whether adherence to international treaties on human rights is hindering a robust defence against the very same Islamic fascism that poses such a threat to the rights of people to live free lives and in particular lives free from the depredations of Islam?
