Saturday, 30 December 2006

Human Rights Or Human Wrongs?

Reading the news today, I see the 'Human Rights Activists' banging on about the infringement of such, regarding the hanging of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone automatically have the right to live?

Or should that be earned by...

A) Should they wish to go it alone, the individual's determination to survive?

B) Should they wish to be part of a society, the individual's determination to survive, contribution to that society as best they can and a lack of desire to keep killing members of it (because that one really pisses people off!)?

And as for 'inhumane', what does that mean?

A) According to the HRA, anything that they find distasteful.

B) In real life, anything outside the purview of human imagination when it comes to that fundamental axiom, 'self preservation'. Or, in other words, not a bloody lot!

Maybe the expression would be more accurately presented as 'insocietous' and let's leave 'inhumane' for creatures that aren't actually human?

I'd be interested in what people have to say about that.

Apologies to my small but growing army of bum chums out there, will get back to the more serious issues of willies (pun intended) and botties in the next post!

4 comments:

Soft Pink said...

People with too much time on their hands...maybe they're bloggers too? I didn't realize how litigatious Iraqi society was. In a debate between Dr. Curtis F. J. Doebbler and Professor Michael P. Scharf it is pointed out that Germans after the Nuremburg Trials at the end of WW2 hadn't thought the defendants had had a fair trial before an International Tribunal. Likewise was the trial of Slobodan Milsosevic where the Yugoslavian Tribunal experienced the same thing. During this trial the Serb people were polled and the consensus was he was not getting a fair trial in front of an International tribunal. The trial of Saddam I presume was prosecuted by the Iraqis themselves for these very reasons if not wholly atleast in part.

Oddly the first trial Judge, Chief Judge Abdullah al-Amiri was a Sunni, like Saddam and if you recall had stated in open court to Saddam "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator." What is odd is that Iraqi Prime Minister promptly had the Judge replaced by Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa a Shiite. During the trial his brother in law was also murdered! Whether Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa was impartial is something probably he only knows!




http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/entry.asp?entry_id=1

Justin Brown said...

Normally I quite like bollocks but, in this instance, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There's nowt as queer as folk, eh?

Anonymous said...

who gives a shit

Justin Brown said...

Anyone that can be bothered to ask, by default, since you ask!