The “human rights” instruments I have discussed – the UDHR, the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the ICERD, the CEDAW, and the CRC – are the most prominent ones with global application, and they differ from the more humble instruments whose goals do not include the restructuring of civil society (e.g., the conventions against torture and genocide). Various regional instruments have emerged that echo the UDHR and its progeny, such as the European Convention on Human Rights; the American Convention on Human Rights; and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Taken together, these treaties signify the global ascendancy of an intrusive, government-centered philosophy that bears no kinship with true rights of speech, property, (non-)association, or parenting. Even the radical “Second Generation Rights” – which enslave some individuals to supply the wants and needs of others – have proved too moderate for the “human rights” zealots, who today browbeat for “Third Generation Rights” that will submerge the very concept of the individual into the collective. Tragically, the United States government has ratified the ICCPR and the ICERD, and it has also signed the ICESCR, the CEDAW, and the CRC. A more complete rupture with America’s founding principles could scarcely be imagined, as our government discards the individualist philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and surrenders to the Old-World outlook from which our ancestors fled.
Quite apart from the violence our institutions might suffer upon the federal government’s ratification and implementation of these treaties, we find that various state and local governments already have begun enforcing the anti-individualist conception of “human rights” that these treaties promote. In what was once meat-and-potatoes America, there have cropped up “human rights commissions” reminiscent of war-torn Africa, imposing sanctions and infamy on honest people who made the mistake of acting as if they were free.
Take the example of a T.G.I. Fridays located in Alexandria, Virginia, a town where I once resided: the Fridays decided to fire (i.e., to end its contractual relationship with) one of its employees because he was H.I.V. positive. In the old America, the employee’s recourse, if any, would appear in the employment contract and nowhere else. As America began shedding its limited-government tradition, the federal government and several state governments intruded on this private arrangement to punish such employer choices with civil remedies. In today’s America, even those punitive measures look too mild, so the Alexandria Human Rights Commission investigated and essentially adjudged the employer an enemy of humankind.
Consider also the plight of Geno’s Steaks, a popular restaurant located in South Philadelphia, and whose owner dared to post a sign requesting that customers place their orders in English. Even though Geno’s never refused service to anyone, a collection of sociopaths at the Philadelphia Commission On Human Relations filed a discrimination complaint against him. It was only by drawing national attention that Geno’s escaped sanction, a result that so angered Philadelphia Councilman James Kenney that he actually said the following: “He's like a legend in his own mind. He’s spun it so that he's a martyr in people's minds in order to gain financial benefit. He’s a selfish individual.” So this is what our “leaders” think of us when we attempt to exercise our God-given rights: as “selfish.” Insanity of this sort will only worsen as long as the United States does not actively challenge and refute “human rights” as currently conceived, which are completely out of step with our founding principles.
It would be bad enough if the United States were destroying only itself, but by participating in a worldwide enterprise of this sort the United States is once again helping to torch the sovereignty of the nation-state. In furtherance of that objective, a body of “human rights jurisprudence” continuously swells in the courts and breaks loose from any treaty text, taking on a life of its own that “human rights” advocates consider both legally and morally authoritative. Private lawsuits in particular have proved highly corrosive to national sovereignty, as the old defenses of sovereign immunity and the act-of-state doctrine give way to the onrush of plaintiffs from around the world who flock to the United States to take advantage of the manifold litigation weapons that our court system offers.
Such “human rights” lawsuits are beginning to target private entities rather than just governments, thereby functioning again to destroy international law – which applies to nation-states – and replace it with open-ended system of supranational law that directly and uniformly dictates all of our duties as “global citizens.” For example, citizens of Ecuador filed a lawsuit in a United Stated federal court against Texaco, alleging that the environmental impact of Texaco’s operations violated international law and their own “human rights.” Similarly, an Indonesian plaintiff brought a “human rights” lawsuit in federal court against an American company on the basis that its mining operations harmed the environment and disrupted the habitat of a native tribe. Although those early efforts failed, a more recent federal complaint was filed against Unocal for constructing a pipeline in Myanmar, alleging that Unocal knew the military junta in that country often forces people into slave labor. Even though Unocal did not act with governmental authority in any way, the plaintiffs sought to hold Unocal liable as a “human rights” violator for cooperating with Myanmar’s military regime, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to proceed even though Unocal was a private entity. Unocal ultimately settled out of court rather than endure a trial in which a parade of government-inflicted horribles would be attributed to it. In the wake of this episode, courts have continued to allow these lawsuits to obliterate the distinction between private law and public international law.
For now, most of these lawsuits have made headway because they revolve around egregious practices such as torture or slavery, which no one wants to appear to be defending. But hard cases make bad law, and it is only a matter of time before a federal lawsuit successfully tars a private defendant on the other side of the planet as a “human rights” violator for denying maternity leave from work; for making racist and/or sexist jokes in the workplace; for refusing someone membership in a social organization; or for openly criticizing homosexuality.
In the final analysis, “human rights” is a phrase that appeals to everyone’s sense of justice, but which governments have manipulated to achieve greater global control. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments enumerate finite behaviors that we may engage in. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments reserve un-enumerated and presumptive powers for themselves. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments claim the ability to revoke our rights during an "emergency." Under the banner of “human rights,” governments force some individuals to toil for the benefit of others in order to redistribute the fruits of labor. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments monitor private speech and work to eradicate disfavored attitudes. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments deny parents the ability to raise their children as they see fit. And under the banner of “human rights,” governments invite us to cannibalize each other with a global system of law that once applied only to governments themselves.
If there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it would be to reject any official definition of “human rights” and to retain your own understanding of that noble concept, an understanding grounded in a familiarity with the struggles of our ancestors, personal experience, and common sense. Our rights are just that: ours. No grouping of corrupt men wearing the badges of political authority can encapsulate them or ration them out to you, so do not fall into the trap of justifying what you do with your life; instead, demand that government justify its own serial intrusions into your pursuit of happiness.
Quite apart from the violence our institutions might suffer upon the federal government’s ratification and implementation of these treaties, we find that various state and local governments already have begun enforcing the anti-individualist conception of “human rights” that these treaties promote. In what was once meat-and-potatoes America, there have cropped up “human rights commissions” reminiscent of war-torn Africa, imposing sanctions and infamy on honest people who made the mistake of acting as if they were free.
Take the example of a T.G.I. Fridays located in Alexandria, Virginia, a town where I once resided: the Fridays decided to fire (i.e., to end its contractual relationship with) one of its employees because he was H.I.V. positive. In the old America, the employee’s recourse, if any, would appear in the employment contract and nowhere else. As America began shedding its limited-government tradition, the federal government and several state governments intruded on this private arrangement to punish such employer choices with civil remedies. In today’s America, even those punitive measures look too mild, so the Alexandria Human Rights Commission investigated and essentially adjudged the employer an enemy of humankind.
Consider also the plight of Geno’s Steaks, a popular restaurant located in South Philadelphia, and whose owner dared to post a sign requesting that customers place their orders in English. Even though Geno’s never refused service to anyone, a collection of sociopaths at the Philadelphia Commission On Human Relations filed a discrimination complaint against him. It was only by drawing national attention that Geno’s escaped sanction, a result that so angered Philadelphia Councilman James Kenney that he actually said the following: “He's like a legend in his own mind. He’s spun it so that he's a martyr in people's minds in order to gain financial benefit. He’s a selfish individual.” So this is what our “leaders” think of us when we attempt to exercise our God-given rights: as “selfish.” Insanity of this sort will only worsen as long as the United States does not actively challenge and refute “human rights” as currently conceived, which are completely out of step with our founding principles.
It would be bad enough if the United States were destroying only itself, but by participating in a worldwide enterprise of this sort the United States is once again helping to torch the sovereignty of the nation-state. In furtherance of that objective, a body of “human rights jurisprudence” continuously swells in the courts and breaks loose from any treaty text, taking on a life of its own that “human rights” advocates consider both legally and morally authoritative. Private lawsuits in particular have proved highly corrosive to national sovereignty, as the old defenses of sovereign immunity and the act-of-state doctrine give way to the onrush of plaintiffs from around the world who flock to the United States to take advantage of the manifold litigation weapons that our court system offers.
Such “human rights” lawsuits are beginning to target private entities rather than just governments, thereby functioning again to destroy international law – which applies to nation-states – and replace it with open-ended system of supranational law that directly and uniformly dictates all of our duties as “global citizens.” For example, citizens of Ecuador filed a lawsuit in a United Stated federal court against Texaco, alleging that the environmental impact of Texaco’s operations violated international law and their own “human rights.” Similarly, an Indonesian plaintiff brought a “human rights” lawsuit in federal court against an American company on the basis that its mining operations harmed the environment and disrupted the habitat of a native tribe. Although those early efforts failed, a more recent federal complaint was filed against Unocal for constructing a pipeline in Myanmar, alleging that Unocal knew the military junta in that country often forces people into slave labor. Even though Unocal did not act with governmental authority in any way, the plaintiffs sought to hold Unocal liable as a “human rights” violator for cooperating with Myanmar’s military regime, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to proceed even though Unocal was a private entity. Unocal ultimately settled out of court rather than endure a trial in which a parade of government-inflicted horribles would be attributed to it. In the wake of this episode, courts have continued to allow these lawsuits to obliterate the distinction between private law and public international law.
For now, most of these lawsuits have made headway because they revolve around egregious practices such as torture or slavery, which no one wants to appear to be defending. But hard cases make bad law, and it is only a matter of time before a federal lawsuit successfully tars a private defendant on the other side of the planet as a “human rights” violator for denying maternity leave from work; for making racist and/or sexist jokes in the workplace; for refusing someone membership in a social organization; or for openly criticizing homosexuality.
In the final analysis, “human rights” is a phrase that appeals to everyone’s sense of justice, but which governments have manipulated to achieve greater global control. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments enumerate finite behaviors that we may engage in. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments reserve un-enumerated and presumptive powers for themselves. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments claim the ability to revoke our rights during an "emergency." Under the banner of “human rights,” governments force some individuals to toil for the benefit of others in order to redistribute the fruits of labor. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments monitor private speech and work to eradicate disfavored attitudes. Under the banner of “human rights,” governments deny parents the ability to raise their children as they see fit. And under the banner of “human rights,” governments invite us to cannibalize each other with a global system of law that once applied only to governments themselves.
If there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it would be to reject any official definition of “human rights” and to retain your own understanding of that noble concept, an understanding grounded in a familiarity with the struggles of our ancestors, personal experience, and common sense. Our rights are just that: ours. No grouping of corrupt men wearing the badges of political authority can encapsulate them or ration them out to you, so do not fall into the trap of justifying what you do with your life; instead, demand that government justify its own serial intrusions into your pursuit of happiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment