The UAE, Amnesty International, And A Question of Treason

I am not a fan of Amnesty International or other so called defenders of human rights because they have a tendency to call wolf whether there is actually a wolf there or not. That kind of false accusations gives birth to many human right abuses. Below I have several quotes from one of their reports on the United Arab Emirates.

Death penalty and cruel judicial punishments

In March a Yemeni national was reportedly executed in Dubai after he was found guilty of killing four of his relatives. In April an appeal court in Dubai upheld the death sentences of Andre Seefred, a Ukrainian national aged 28, and Sergei Doboni, a Russian national aged 24, who had been convicted in February of murdering an Indian national in July 2001. At least 20 individuals were sentenced to be flogged.

Here is some statistics on the United Arab Emirates.

“UAE is already:
* The world’s third richest, with per capita income of $16,471
* The fourth largest oil producer at 2.5 million barrels per day
* One of the world’s lowest crime rates – 19 per thousand
* One of the best student – teacher ratios – 12 to 1
* A doctor per 311 people and a hospital bed per 853
* An automobile for every six people and a phone for every three. “

So the UAE is strict on crime and the crime rate is low. That makes me think that Amnesty International views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim.

Ill-treatment in prison

Disturbances in Dubai’s male prison in February reportedly resulted in injuries to several people. The authorities denied reports that prisoners had died.
On 30 July, following a dispute mainly between prisoners, the authorities reportedly ill-treated prisoners to restore order. An Iranian prisoner reportedly died as a result.

I do not know why amnesty international seem so concerned about the rights of criminals. I guess they feel that prisoners have the right to do violence but that guards do not. That is a strange double standard to say the least.

Child labour

In July, in a move to enforce a 1993 law banning the use of boys as camel jockeys, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs reportedly announced that children under the age of 15 would be banned from camel racing. Boys as young as four have reportedly been used as jockeys and some have been seriously injured or killed during races.

It sounds like the government is attempting to stop human right abuses which is what they are supposed to do. Of course the government does not have the right to discipline the human right abusers as that would violate the abusers human rights.

Intergovernmental organizations

In March the UAE submitted a report to the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee detailing measures intended to combat “terrorism”. These mainly related to financial controls and increased cooperation with international policing bodies, but also referred to the UAE’s accession in 1999 to the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. AI believes that provisions of the Arab Convention violate international human rights standards.

In May the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the UAE’s initial report in respect of its obligations as a state party to the UN Children’s Convention. In June, in its Concluding Observations, the Committee welcomed various measures undertaken by the UAE to promote children’s rights, but recommended that the government withdraw its reservation to Article 14 of the Convention, under which state parties are to respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Committee also called on the government to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention; abolish the imposition of flogging and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment on people who have committed crimes when they were under 18, and ensure that the system of juvenile justice includes juvenile courts and fully integrates the provisions of the Convention. The Committee also expressed serious concern at “the hazardous situation of children involved in camel racing

This brings to mind the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Roper v. Simmons when 5 of our high Justices chose to violate the U.S. Constitution in order to comply with United Nations rules. That is an act of perjury which comes mighty close to treason if it is not treason. The American Bar Association which most if not all justices are a member of is an NGO of the United Nations. The ACLU and the NAACP both NGO’s of the United Nations in conjunction with other so called civil rights organizations filed an amicus brief in the case. The Open Society Institute is known to have made grants to both The ACLU and the ABA. George Soros is a nationalized citizen and the money man behind The Open Society Institute in known to fund and has been accused of purchasing the Democratic Party.

You can find out what groups are NGO's of the United Nations at the website of the United Nations Department of Information. Grantmaker will tell you what organizations the Open Society Institute makes loans to. A search for George Soros will find his relationship to the Democratic party.

The Natural Right And Duty Of A Government To Legislate Morality

Cites not otherwise credited to others are from David Hines in our debate on the forum at Renew America.

The fact of the Bill of Rights is proof that the Founders were leery of
granting government such potentially limitless authority.

The government as an organization is an artificial person. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to legislate the morality of that artificial person.

Frankly, I've read Hobbes, Locke, et al, and appeals to authority don't impress me nearly as much as a well-considered and logically consistent position.

That display a flaw in your method of gathering evidence and proving a case. When in court both sides will call up expert witnesses to prove their case. If you disregard those witnesses then you are weakening the evidence that is presented. In logic you give premises then make a conclusion from those premises. You state you disregard those premises because they are appeals to authority. That unsound. A sound method would be to prove the authority was wrong, not serious, or similar fallacy. You have not done that.

This is my appeal to authority to prove that the Declaration and Constitution do in fact advocate the legislation of morality by the government. The below excerpt is from Thomas Jefferson papers. That is the same Thomas Jefferson that had a large hand in scripting the Declaration of Independence.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered
as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United
States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State,
and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The
Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2.
The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which
appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as
evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted
the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.
3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of
the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense
of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President
Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the
branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity,
these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.

This is from chapter 2 of The Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke.

“Sec. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do. “

This is from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,

You will notice that the John Locke’s ideals on the role of government were made the law of the land by the Declaration of Independence. I am confident that it is absurd to consider that The U.S. Constitution is destructive of those ends. I am convinced it was designed to further the federal government’s duty to secure our rights from ourselves and others.

To prove a historic case you appeal to authorities to prove your hypothesis. I have done that here. To prove my logic is faulty you need to prove that the examples I gave are not authorities on the subject, that I am misinterpreting their intentions, or that their arguments are faulty, that the connections between the documents I propose are incorrect. Another premise I have made that I did not address directly is that the Declaration declares John Locke’s theories as true and self evident.

Kerwin, I'm missing your logical consistency. If God granted free will, why is
it the purview of humans to deny it? If God is God, how could He make such a
bonehead mistake?

Making a law does not take away a person’s free will as they always have the ability to disobey the law. What it does is discourage certain behavior and grants the government permission to render justice. If the law is correctly used then it secures the rights of the People. The ideal of a republic form of government is that the people decide which rights are secured and to what degree the government secures those rights.

With this port deal, it seems to matter not what We the People think. Government
is on autopilot, and will act as it pleases no matter what its nominal bosses
say.

The government is out of control only because the people allow it to continue out of control. The Declaration of Independence and John Locke declares that we always have the right to rebel. The Second Amendment of the Constitution can be interpreted to justify rebellion. That is why the government seeks to deprive us of the right to bear arms. We could choose to riot as the Muslims our over the bigoted attack on their religion. Since we sit hear and allow the government to bully us we are not acting to bring them in control. Do you know of a petition to stop the port deal? Where are the peaceful protests? I have not even seen conservatives interested in making changes that they have put aside their differences and acted together as a whole. A house divided can not triumph.

It is impossible to have it both ways. Either we are free and responsible for
our actions, or we are slaves or serfs, with government responsible for our
actions. You tell me you opt for the slavery, because it enables to enforcement
of morality. It's okay with me if you choose to abdicate your own responsibility
and consequently your liberty, but not when you choose to abdicate mine for
me.

The law of morality is only for those that are slaves to immorality. I would rather the government enslaved them to morality than allow them to deprive themselves or others of their natural rights. Those who behave in a moral fashion have nothing to fear from the law of morality and are not slaves to it because they are not lawbreakers.

Thomas Carlyle: "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual folly."
(I hope I remembered that right.) Apparently you do. Your foolish humans, by
virtue of acting within a collective, are somehow immune from the folly to which
the flesh is heir. That seems to me to be misplaced faith -- faith in human
collectives rather than faith in God.

A Republican form of government is not perfect but it seems reasonable to assume it is the best form of government since it allows the people to look out for their own rights. Hopefully the people cleave to Christian morality and show mercy to minorities. It is obvious that that is not the case in the United States at this time.

The Lack Of Legislation Enforcing Morality Leads To Immorality

This is post I entered on Renew America's Forum that I feel is important to the freedom of the United States.

David Hines wrote:

“Kerwin sees black and white -- enforcing morality or enforcing immorality”

I answered:

I am convinced that human beings are immoral by nature and if the government does not enforce morality then immorality will be the result. I also insist that a democratic system in the best way to determine what morality the government enforces and what immorality it tolerates. I do this because there is a number of ideals as to what is moral and what is immoral. The Separation of Church and State political doctrine I addressed in my post titled "The Real Seperation Of Church And State" is an example. I understand that this does allow immorality to be legislated as homosexuality rights and no fault divorce are in some states but it is best that we tolerate the hardness of peoples hearts until they can be brought to wisdom through education.

The Nazi party was elected to power and proceeded to dismantle the democratic system of Germany. This should have been a signal to the people of Germany that they had inadvertently put a despot in power. The majority of the people either backed the Nazi party or chose not to oppose it. I view the present Democratic party in the same light as they support genocide through abortion and other human right abuses while they accuse others of violating human rights. Many conservatives, even social conservatives, have been corrupted by the same disease that has taken over the Democratic party.

The holocaust of legalized abortion has been the accepted norm for 32 years. If the people of the United States were truly as “righteous” as they claim they should have rioted and executed the deciding judges in 1973.

Abortion like civil rights are areas where the government has legislated morality. The removal of legislation enforcing morality by the Supreme Court gave birth to immorality. Roe v. Wade and Plessy V. Ferguson were the pertinent cases. Griswold vs. Connecticut, is another Supreme Court ruling that removed legislation controlling morality and gave birth or added force to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

The Real Seperation Of Church And State

I wrote this is a forum at Renew America and since I feel that the points it raises are important I am repeating it here.

Arthur Martin wrote:

The Church guides the People in the revealed Truth and the Will of God manifested in those Revelations. Laws were written and enforced based primarily upon the Commandments of God. Atheists are reversing that today much to the harm of the People. Atheism is the antithesis of religion because it is defined as not believing in God. Respecting atheism is an affront to God and the Declaration, thus to We the People.

There has always been a separation between church and state. The church handled the spiritual while the state handled temporal matters. They would have situations when a conflict of interests occurred such as when the states moves to discipline heretics. This would cause religions that disagreed with the state religion to be treated as criminals.

The founders of the United States decided that it was a violation of the natural rights that God gave human beings to force your religious beliefs on others by treating their expression of religion as criminal behavior. This caused the free expression of religious clause to be placed into the Constitution. A more specific application of the free expression of religion clause is that no one sincere in their religious beliefs wants to preach or support a religion that is not theirs, so this caused the non-establishment of religion.

Secularist came along and decided that government tolerance of religion is not good enough because religious people are not tolerant of others beliefs and they proceeded to force their belief that religion must be private unto the rest of the people. The atheist were overjoyed at this because they also could use the same basic ideal to force their religion unto others.

Everyone is doing this for the “good” of others. I embrace the religious tolerance ideal of morality that is legislated in the U.S. Constitution as agrees with the right to liberty ideal of the Constitution. It also allows people to attempt to convince others that their religion is the right choice. That means that atheist, Wicca, pagans, and other creeds get to practice their religion unless that practice harms themselves or any other living creature without a noble cause. You can respect the practitioner without respecting the religion they practice as God tells us to love the sinner but not the sin.

There are atheist that hold to the law love your neighbor as yourself. They will also hold to the ideal of natural law as it is based on the Christian law of love. In doing that they support the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Your disagreement with them is an issue of religious doctrine and not morality and as such is best handled by the evangelistic outreach of your chosen religion and not by the government.