We see this most clearly in the 'Human Rights' sphere.
A tavern visitor, Graham Preston, remains in Hobart this week quietly 'demonstrating' to a passing crowd composed largely of drones subverted by a decade of socialist-feminist-green AgitProp. I have featured Graham in the last two posts here - this is the last in a 'trilogy' of posts for the moment at least - and yesterday I joined him on the street.
It is the hospitable thing to do. We cannot have him facing the tyrants alone.
|Libri Vox, my arse.|
Human beings have rights. The US Constitution, for example, considers that they are 'Inalienable' Rights, conferred by Almighty God, but the United Nations begs to differ.
Actually it doesn't beg at all. They - the massed nations run by Tyrants, Dictators, Thugs, Elites - subvert. Not only do they subvert the simple recognition that people are inherently free and come before States, they subvert their own Declaration.
But first, Graham. I stood with him and faced the traffic and passers-by with simple signs.
WHO CARES ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
Simple enough you might think. Who could possibly take offence?
Everyone cares about Free Speech. Don't they?
And a grainy snap of a baby in the womb.
Heck, mums love to see their baby in the womb with the ultrasound gizmo.
No-one could possibly be 'offended'. Shirley?
It was with some sardonic humour for us then that we witnessed a Post Office van drive around the block four times in ten minutes so the driver could hurl invective out of his window.
|The Tavern Keeper? Old Amfortas? Without his armour? Maybe.|
Whilst Graham was taking a well earned ten minute break and I was standing alone, someone else in a car slowed and shouted 'Go Back to Queensland'.
Can idiots be made?
Sure can. Almost anyone can be spoiled with a little drip-fed effort. Socialists, atheists, greenies, feminists, all the Cultural Marxist useful idiots, contribute to the drips. Some drive Post Office vans.
We did have several nice people to provide some small measure of balance however. A rather vociferous woman came up and expressed her approval. Very loudly. And with gusto. A couple of chaps 'nodded' the way chaps do as a sort of silent g'day. A few car drivers 'tooted' rather than blared (as many did).
A little later, after lunch, when I went to do my usual Tuesday Rosary vigil outside the clinic in defiance of Tasmania's atrocious abortion / anti-free-speech law, I was greeted by the lady who went to Graham's aid last week, when he was attacked. She too gave encouragement.
A lovely lady.
Back to the future. The legal case against Graham.
He is charged at the moment with failing to do as ordered by a policeman. That is: 'move along there'. But Graham's lawyer has indicated that he will challenge the Constitutional basis for the 'abortion' of a law that says he cannot stand on a pavement with a sign within 150 metres of the clinic.
You would think, surely, that legislators would enhance people's safe exercise of their inalienable rights when they enact Laws. But no. They drop in 'trapdoor' clauses which give preceding rights to other people to trample on yours. Just in case they are too scared to enrage people by actually enforcing their stupid laws.
So, policemen can 'instruct you' to 'move along there' at whim, with the excuse that 'someone has complained'.
That 'someone' has their identity withheld, of course, to 'protect' them from 'reprisal', so the police can and indeed do simply make it up.
The flowery phrases of the UN's 'Universal Declaration is like that too.
We might envisage the Declaration as couched in terms a child can understand.
In fact one can read all sorts of really fine, relatively simple and straightforward things in it until you get to 'move along there' and read ...
Let's have a squiz. Remember, when doing statutory construction, be sure to read the entire statute.
Contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of its stated universal "rights" away.
Frank Scarn, in the P&B dropped it on us.
Article 29 reads,
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Do you see the “by law” trick?
Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth "by law."
In other words, it's all a charade.
In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people "allowed" to exist but only to serve the state.
Article 29 is a playground for any totalitarian government.
In the UN / USSR / EU approach to government then,
but government can take away,
and still be within compliance with the UDHR by simply referring to and relying upon Article 29.
If a “right’ can be taken away, then no right ever existed.
No counterpart of Article 29 exists in the US Constitution.
That "by law" limitation trick is found throughout EU documents.So you see, there is not a hope of a polythene dog in Hell that we can escape with our freedom intact while Australia is in Thrall to the UN.
The Government of Oz itself does not even have its hand on the Trapdoor lever.
You and I will need it.