The pronoun ‘everyone’ predominates in the initial clauses of the Articles that set down the European Convention Human Rights law (ECHR). In the preamble, one of the main tenets identified is equality. Most of us would applaud such a declaration. However, does equality as written stand up to scrutiny? Several questions emerge from a cursory look at the articles which make up the law and cast doubt on the veracity of the law.
Take for example the headline of a Europa web page. “Human rights don’t discriminate.” www.europa.eu/pol/rights/index_en.htm Admirable, you say, just as it should be. However, in article 23, it clearly states that equality, “…should not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under represented sex.” Furthermore under article 2, it tells us that EU nations retain general powers to take decisions about minorities.
Therefore the door to equality may well be ajar but, crucially, is not fully open to all. Are the under representation of women and the rights of minorities to be construed as temporary adjustments to be later rectified? They are enshrined in law, so who will determine when and how the ‘articles’ on equality will be re addressed? I can appreciate that society in the past has not been the most equal but imposing yesterday’s standards on today hardly seems the best way of achieving equality. There seems to be a strong contradiction here, linked with a blinkered view of what equality means. Retrospective imposition tends to illustrate a bankruptcy of thought.
By imposing ‘advantages’ in favour of women and minorities you are in effect forcing an individual (male) to accept a diktat of a political doctrine. It is my understanding that forced indoctrination was not permitted under Article 9 nor can that be pushed aside while we deal with the other problem?
“You are also protected from indoctrination by the State. This part of Article 9 is an absolute right and can never be interfered with.” www.yourrights.org.uk
Moreover, how can it be argued that HR, “…places the individual at the heart of its activities,” (Charter of Fundamental Rights 2009) when it contradicts itself in point 2, where it states that it, “seeks to promote the rights of women, children, minorities and displaced persons.” www.ec.europa.eu/pol/rights/index_en.htm I have a significant issue with the above statement. To lump children and displaced people with a direct political issue of women and minorities is disingenuous at the very least, or blundering ineptitude. It may also be viewed as a political expedient to provide a gagging mechanism.
No one would deny the rights of children and many contribute handsomely for tragedies such as, Typhoon Haiyan (Nov: 2013) in the Philippines. Where many thousands perhaps millions have been displaced. To lump them together with women and minorities is another shameful sleight of hand akin to the later Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2009. This binding agreement gained legitimacy by being mentioned in the Treaty of Lisbon but not written into the Treaty. The two events can be epitomised as bureaucratic expediency! Where else would we encounter such a set up? Every dictatorship!
In recent years political parties in the UK have sought to promote the inclusion of more women as Members of Parliament (MP’s). To achieve this end they have forced local constituency organisations to adopt and to select from an all-female candidate list, (AFL). Some may cheer, indeed some did; others were merely bemused by the theatre of it all. It’s understandable that many women feel let down by the parliamentary system which is predominately male. The women are by no means alone. Many women felt that issues that directly affected them such as equal pay were not being advanced quick enough. Equal Pay Act 1974.
There are several issues that arise from an ‘all-female list’. The first is a question of democracy; the forced inclusion of AFL’s is a denial of the democratic right of the constituency party, (not all male) to choose its own candidate. The decision is evidence that power is centralised within the respective Party. What Lenin and Trotsky called Democratic Centralism! It tells the local activists that there is no democracy in their organisation. The leadership knows best – pigs on two feet know best! This is symptomatic of an elite, who know, they cannot convince the public in open discussion. Take this example to a wider context and it illustrates all that is wrong with our democracy. The Politburo rule! Read Animal Farm.
Q. Does forced representation bring more bias into Parliament?
Q. Must we ensure minority representation?
Q. Will representation be carried out on a quota basis? E.g. we have X women = X seats?
Q. Will it be broken down into ethnic representation?
Further explanation is required as to the purpose of AFL’s and minority representation. Some will doubtless argue that their presence will have a balancing influence on decision making. However, if we need more women MP’s because female issues are not being addressed and consequently more minority MP’s, ditto; then balance is still not a given. If female and minority members are to vote on all issues then how does that differ from the present situation? It is not a question of who is in parliament but the political beliefs they carry with them.
It has nothing to do with equality. It is much ado about political correctness with its myopic interpretation of equality! It is a farce that should be played on a West End stage. As alluded to earlier Article 9 lays down the law on indoctrination, or brainwashing to be more precise. However, we are subject to it on a daily basis on the television; note a blitzkrieg of politically correct diversity advertisements, though more subtle, has the same end game as the work of Joseph Göbbels of Nazi Germany fame to make you think the way they propose.