It is a lost cause because the political elite felt the need to impose human rights legislation on the people. That action by itself should signal its death knell. Imposition and human rights are a contradiction and thus anathema to the original principle of equality and the strengthening of the democratic process.
At present the UK government are in the process of passing into law ‘secret courts’, whereby certain legal cases will be held behind closed doors. This has the support of all three main political parties. Thus the same people who imposed human rights on us are now seriously restricting those very rights to protect aspects of the police state. Go figure! What does that tell you about our politicians? Keep it clean!
However, for human rights to have universal acceptance for each of its ‘articles’ then by necessity religion must go. Why, I hear the faithful ask? Religion tends to promote equality through diktats such as: ‘Love thy neighbour’ and Do unto others as you would have done unto you.’ The Ten Commandments’ seeks to impose a perfect balance as does human rights legislation and thus would appear compatible. The Catholic Church has tried to beat a conscience into people for centuries to no avail.
Moreover, religion has many quirks; some have no tolerance for the view that women are equal, some have no tolerance for each other. Within the Christian church there are a host of views: ‘a woman’s place is in the home.’ ‘Gays’ should seek divine help.’ ‘The sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.’ These are a few such contradictions. There are just too many contradictions in religion that are in direct conflict with legislation on human rights. Where there are ideological differences there is always the danger of violent outcomes.
Furthermore, public perception is at very low ebb on the issue. Supporters of HR law may try to dismiss public anxiety by suggesting it is only teething problems, but they’d be very wrong. Public perception is not based on anecdotal tales that could be bridled by the establishment of facts. The real bugbear is the abuse of the system and the sheer number of legal cases, most of which are trivial, that has generated a sizeable bucket of distaste. Castigating the public as being backward or racist or any of that ilk only adds to their disgust, and particularly of politicians.
Add to the situation mentioned above the case of the gypsy, who receives preferential treatment under planning regulations. Several ‘articles’ of HR law begin with the pronoun ‘everyone’ yet people’s every day experience is that specific groups and individuals get preferential treatment. The conclusion must be that HR law is biased; it does not represent ‘everyone’. Your ordinary citizen sees through the papered over cracks. In essence and in practice, supporters and politicians are treating Joe Public as morons; that will ultimately lead to its demise.
The HR lobby has given little consideration to the foibles of people, (others may call them the deadly sins) and stoking the furnace is our old friend, no not the devil, capitalism. Self, individualism and image are purposely exploited to make a quick buck. Capitalism does not engender support for respect or for equality unless there’s money in it. Poverty and exploitation are constants under the capitalist system; so how does human right override that situation? NOT AT ALL!
In Europe, HR law is dependent on the European Union (EU) remaining a stable and coherent body. However, the EU is not in good health, it is teetering on the brink of breaking up. The only thing holding it together is Germany and the willingness of the Germans to pay for the upkeep. Recent opinion polls would suggest that a growing number of German people are fast running out of patience and would vote to leave the Union. Such an event would be disastrous for the Union and for HR law. Many who have joined the EU had to sign up to the HR law to be allowed into the club. If the EU falls apart many countries will ditch the HR law to facilitate business.
The true failure of the political elite was not to build a consensus for human rights before implementing a mishmash of things.