Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)
Posted by jingoisticbuthornydesperado on September 9, 2008
Human rights are the ultimate goal of an idealistic libertarian. Many are naïve, but many more are ignorant about the concepts of human rights.
Of course, freedom of speech and expression is part of the core value of our human rights, but the meaning of human rights is much more than just freedom of speech and expression. The true meaning of human rights is for the betterment of mankind rather than the need to satisfy the selfish desire to vent our angst without consequences or to further one’s political ambition. The very definition of human rights can also be twisted and be used as a weapon to deny other people from having equal rights and to justify the need of discrimination!
Let me start with the religious conservative or fundamentalist. There have been cases where the secular law requires religious order to stop its discrimination against ‘out of norm’ civil unions or adoption preferences. By the very definition of human rights, all of us are equal, which is what secularism is fighting for. But then we start having religious zealots who go all out to say that the secular law implemented deny the zealots themselves the human rights to practise the freedom of conscience. They want to have the freedom to ‘indignantly’ proselytise their beliefs, forcefully jam a feeding tube down our throats and feed us with their regurgitated faeces. They are willing to deny orphan children a home just because they think that the home these children are going into, is wrong in the eyes of their ‘God’. They want to have the freedom to practise what they ‘THINK’ is right and have us forced into their way of practice and thinking. Allowing others to do ‘wrong’ is to deny the zealots to practise what their conscience says is ‘RIGHT’ (as dictated by holy scriptures which were written by men). So to cut it short, they support discrimination! They rather have children orphaned and deny them a happy family. They rather have loving nurturing couple live a life of disappointment and inhibiting them from spreading the love. I call this an abomination!
And then we have China. Yes indeed, China does not have the best track record when it comes to human rights, but many people have also failed to understand the cultural and philosophical differences that separate the East from the West. The East still idolise the teaching of Confucius whereby the harmony of the family, the society or the country is more important than individual liberty. Some has accused me of doing a Hitler, when it was actually an idea that was founded 2500 years ago in China by Confucius that brought the Golden Age of Han and Tang dynasty. This actually benefitted the world until now through China’s ancient creative oeuvres. Hitler just twisted Confucius idea for his evil purposes to justify the need of the Holocaust. The most fundamental of all human rights is the rights to survive. A stable source of income, having to put food on the table for a hungry family for the majority can only be obtained in a stable society. Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, can be skewed in such a libertarian selfish way that it harms the general society. To say that China has fared badly in human rights is to ignore the fact that China has done tremendously well to maintain peace (human rights of having roof over the head, very fundamental) from its civil war and the disastrous cultural revolution. It will also be ignoring the fact that China has done tremendously well to feed its population (human rights to the access to food and water for survival) since its disastrous Great Leap Forward programme that leaves much of its population to starvation. All these are done in a mere 30-40 years in a country of more than a billion in population. I call these a milestone achievement in human rights. As its society matures, there is always of course room for further improvement and perfection……
Of late, you have the seemingly feminist Sarah Palin who is denying the very women in America their feminist rights. I did have a soft spot for her, I like to believe that she is a nice person who gets caught up in the Republican despicable and crass strategy. She is proud of her daughter making her decision to keep the baby and marry her boyfriend. Is there a need to be proud and happy of her daughter’s decision when she is an extremist pro-life person? There is no such choice when one is an extremist pro-life person, hence there shouldn’t be such thing as a decision. When there is no such thing as a decision, why is there a need to be proud and happy for a decision that shouldn’t exist in the first place? Paradoxical? I will blog more about human rights and Sarah Palin in part 2 of my article. For now, it is bed time……