Human Rights and National Suicide Pacts

Abu Qatada, a charming Palestinian who is known as Osama bin Laden’s “ambassador to Europe,” has associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (from Iraq), Zacarias Moussaoui (of 9/11 fame), and Richard Reid (shoe bomber).  Though Abu Qatada arrived in the United Kingdom on a forged passport, he was permitted to settle as a political refugee.  For about the past ten years, the United Kingdom has sought without success to remove him as the courts block every attempt in the name of human rights.

There is no need to discuss this case in any detail as you can read any number of similar cases in the British courts in which individuals enter the country on false papers, claim asylum, never work, and live off state benefits. Either they become directly involved in terrorist activities soon after their arrival, or do so after a life of crime and conversion to Islam in prison.

How is it possible that a country as important as Britain with its fine traditions of values, ethics, and common sense can have reached a situation that it cannot control its borders, nor remove those who openly wish to kill its citizens (and be foolish enough to pay for it)? The answer is the Human Rights Act.

Though space does not permit a full discussion, the scale of the problem must be described. Recently, some of those who aided the 7/21 bombers (the second wave of attempted bombings of London transportation after 7/7) were released.  After numerous legal battles, at vast expense to the British taxpayer (legal aid was granted), the courts held that deportation to Eritrea for one individual would breach human rights.  Therefore, the individual is free to live in London (on welfare) and must be monitored 24/7 by the security forces (I forgot to add — at great expense).

So a foreign national, who has participated in violent jihad with the aim of slaughtering as many British citizens as possible, cannot be removed — not even for the sake of the safety of the population.

Recently, several members of a terrorist cell were arrested in Manchester. Bizarrely, two of the terrorists argued that it would breach their human rights to be returned to Pakistan, while two others did not raise this argument and were returned. There are hundreds of cases pending before the European Court arguing that the return of petty criminals to Islamic states could violate the criminals’ human rights since Islamic states impose Islamic punishments.

Our authorities are unable to try terrorist suspects in many cases, because our courts have ruled that a fair trial requires cross examination of witnesses and therefore MI5 must expose its informers. This, of course, is likely to result in the informers’ death (unless a new identity and country is given) and is a somewhat limiting factor in securing new recruits.  All in the name of human rights.

There is nothing to worry about. To prove this, the archbishop of Canterbury and the lord chief justice have called for the introduction of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, lamenting how woefully misunderstood it is.

Simultaneously, the British police act in the vanguard of the human rights agenda in Britain.  In 2007, Channel 4, a major national television network, produced a documentary titled Undercover Mosque, which portrayed imams saying, “You have to bomb the Indian businesses and, as for the Jews, you kill them physically” and a whole range of other “religious” speech advocating violent jihad. This is a clear case of a “hate crime,” one would think (“hate crime” is another child of human rights).  But the Crown Prosecution Service said no charges should be brought as there was “insufficient evidence,” even as the police announced they would consider prosecuting Channel 4 for showing the documentary.

You can imagine what the average British citizen thinks.  Channel 4 is big enough and with enough money to defend itself, and it sued the police for libel. The police capitulated and paid £100,000 to Channel 4 and accepted “without reservation” that the documentary was accurate and dealt with the subject matter responsibly. The question remains: why have the imams not been arrested? And why have the police officers themselves not been arrested for interfering with the administration of justice?

In modern Britain, all Catholic adoption agencies have been closed for the vile act of seeking to place children, who are residing in cold institutions, with loving Catholic families and not same-sex couples. All in the name of human rights.

Christian foster parents have been denied the right to foster children as Judeo-Christian ethics of sexual morality could be inimical to the welfare of a child (who may be homosexual in later life). Thus the pool of available and suitable homes is depleted.  All in the name of human rights.

Our courts permit the hijab and turban, but do not permit the wearing of crosses by Christians as there is insufficient evidence of this religious practice. British Airways, our national flag carrier, had a uniform policy that permitted the wearing of the hijab, the turban, and the siska Hindu ponytail, but forbade the wearing of a small cross the size of a dime around the neck.  All in the name of human rights.

I could go on.

If America is to maintain its exceptionalism, its ability to resist “evil” and to lead the free world (many Europeans are begging the Americans to start leading again), it is vitally important that the United States resist international legal entanglements by either the signing of international human rights treaties, or by their own domestic courts importing European human rights jurisprudence into the domestic legal system.  The U.S. Constitution has worked well enough for over 200 years.  The human rights agenda is a hardened secularist political program. If it only sought to undermine Judeo-Christian values, that would be bad enough, but it is irrational, arbitrary, and contrary to common sense.  It is the suicide pact of the Western world.