[from Maurice Frank submission to Scotland’s All Our Rights in Law enquiry on a human rights bill, 15 Dec 2020 ]
GROUP SUBMISSIONS AND PEER PRESSURE
As personal expression is a human right and all features of population groups’ lives inform another human right, both are violated for any person who gets excluded from the hearing of a population group’s views by reason of peer pressured infighting in the minority group. That gives you you a duty of care to scrutinise all group submissions for whether their character is free speaking or peer pressured, and never to treat any population group as spoken for, entirely or principally, by any dogmatic and peer pressured circles claiming to speak for it. The same as radical feminists do not speak for all women, so a militant strand in the autistic scene, characterised by ever shifting demands to ban words and phrases, does not speak for all autistics.
[all minority groups]..not to take any of the quick-rejecting excluding factions as their whole voice, but automatically to hear the ethically inclusive voices and to take those as the more genuine representation.. Secondly, that logically establishes a position that it is actually a part of human rights protections of any population group
* to have an organised community with ethics of inclusion and of safety from rejection,
* to be taken as spoken for only by that community, and not by any community that they can get rejected from as a result of personal infighting or factional popularity issues.
* also not to be taken as spoken for by national-scale charities that do not operate with an obligation to say items raised from the population group’s grassroots, but that entirely decide for themselves what to say and what priorities to choose.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
In evidence of the non-genuineness of grassroots evidence gathered in ways that are subject to peer pressure, I cite a day conference called a “Regional People’s Hearing on Disarmament” held in Edinburgh on 6 Nov 1999 by the United Nations Association, with its findings sent to the UN. It was a totally peer pressured occasion, conducted on a presupposition of taking a CND view, and preemptively hostile and not accepting as valid for anyone not to do that.
Someone struggling nervously to word her comment in a session whose leader had opened with the assertion that nuclear weapons are illegal, was coaxed with “I’m sure…” you are going to take the same line on it as everyone else. That was wrong in its assumption that everyone present held the approved view, and intimidatory that any not holding it would be ruled out. Under that intimidation that session was filled with assumptions about “anyone here” from others including a prominent journalist. The day’s introductory speech was based on triumphant celebration of a then-recent court ruling in Greenock that referred to some CND protesters’ belief that their actions were preventive of an illegality. The speech hailed this, as CND was claiming, that it was actually a decision that nuclear weapons are illegal, ignoring that already by the conference’s date the sheriff who made the ruling had clarified to the media that it was not. It was only a ruling on how the protesters’ belief affected actions’ criminality, not whether their belief was right.
To complaining all this to the UNA, the total answer I received was: “Thank you very much for your very interesting letter of 6th November. It is good to know that our Disarmament Hearing in Edinburgh raised such key issues. I am very grateful to you for writing to me. Yours in peace,”
The above, and below, is my submitted answer to any parties who propose to you to enact human rights bars on nuclear weapons. The subject is usually subject to such a culture of morally certain intolerance, and resulting peer pressure, in all types of left wing inclined social circles, that the viability of the civil resistance to invasion that CND has proposed in their place since the 1980s never gets scrutinised rationally. But it must get that before any human rights conclusions can be based on it. Though Neil Kinnock got into a logical mess with it in the 1987 election, in more recent projections of the CND view as a progressive fashion we never hear objections to the viability. That is particularly unjust when the obvious objection is derisive and intolerant behaviours themselves!
All human rights are obviously violated by any hostile power forcibly replacing democracy with authoritarian conditions policed by fear. Therefore, 2 such methods, invasion or nuclear blackmail, violate all human rights, therefore human rights include to have defences against them. Therefore, if situations can happen where no other means exist than nuclear, then those weapons are not illegal, because they are not gratuitous. What would be gratuitous would be to target cities with them and massacre civilian populations, it is good that the human right to life enacts against that with any type of weapon. So it limits nuclear weapons’ use to directly against the point of military attack at last ditch survival point against conquest. Within that limit it is not genocide, nor is it to say so. That was the International Court of justice’s conclusion in 1996, and is fair to write into human rights.
By the rights of self-defence and of not having all rights forcibly taken away, nuclear weapons can not become illegal until campaigners for that position evidence that reliably in practice civil resistance to an occupation would happen, would be adequately and reliably organised in face of that situation’s terrors, and would succeed in ousting an occupation even against a nuclear blackmailer. As yet that is a completely implausible utopian fantasy. Prime in making it so is the massive pervasiveness, in society, of nasty social behaviours to each other. How commonly folks hurt, offend, reject, betray, deride each other, fall out, and are uncaring. Those are exactly the behaviours that need not to exist among persons trying to carry out a civil resistance! Those behaviours would make it fall apart and fail.
Each of these behaviours makes nuclear weapons legal, because each makes it impossible to rely on civil resistance to a conqueror succeeding, or even getting organised large scale successfully at all. The left wing culture for dogmatic peer pressures for all the “right-on” approved views, including for CND views, actually itself disproves those CND views and makes nuclear weapons legal. In the 1980s-90s it was farcical that celebrity endorsement of CND views was led by the period’s very emotionally savage style of “alternative comedians”. The devastating emotional cruelty and graphic violence that their comedy consisted mostly of, seriously made nuclear weapons legal, and actively brutalised society oppositely to what was needed to bring the civil resistance idea any hope of viability. In 2000 the humanitarian objections to the fuel blockades evidenced what would happen when a civil resistance movement would try to bring an occupied society to a halt: that it would obstruct innocent people’s health care needs, or be defeated by the humanitarian dilemmas of so doing.
For as long as nuclear weapons remain legal, it will not be a conclusion just to have to take passively. It will move the culpability for their horrors, hence illegality of inflicting them, onto the cruel social behaviours. The horrors of nuclear weapons do then make something illegal – all of those social behaviours.
Because this evidence identifies wrongs that are blamable for making nuclear weapons legal, it does not nullify the human rights gain made by the anti-nuclear lobby’s setting up of a moral accountability to defend all proposed purposes for the weapons, and indeed for all weapons. Structures of moral accountability for all weapons are a common sense provision to enact as part of the right to life.
In 2017, CND campaigner Brian Quail was in jail and invited public letters of support based on the weapons’ illegality. I wrote him this point instead, to add to the moral equation, with a long list of social behaviours whose unstopped existence makes the weapons legal. In reply, he just arbitrarily called the list nonsense on the sole reasoning: “These ills are completely divorced from us having Trident, and having Trident does not inhibit — inany way at all – these evils.” So no answer at all to my contention that they make civil resistance to conquest unreal unviable and fantasy. He sent me 8 pages on the horrors of Hiroshima instead, and declined further contact on grounds of being life-set in his views, which conveniently shielded him from getting shown his answer’s demerits. That was clearly a failure to refute or answer my point. The 8 pages evidenced exactly the horrors that human rights observant societies need defending against getting done to them by nuclear armed enemies, and ignored that I had not argued for civilian massacre targetting choices.
As my list stands unrefuted by him, I present it to you too:
* racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and every bigotry.
* ostracism.
* shouting down.
* teasing, winding up, derision, and ribaldry.
* hurtful bluntness and grumpiness.
* adults speaking harshly controllingly to children.
* peer pressure.
* the expression “shut up”.
* the expression “do me a favour, go away”.
*the expression “you know ..”[something you think they don’t know]”.. don’t you ?”
* the practice of saying you do not understand, in a manner of refusing to listen and as a justification for not listening.
* the practice of calling any unfairness “the way it is”.
* the miserably very common practice of using the word “unfortunately” as a weapon to assert that unfairnesses shall happen.
* throwings/pushings out of groups.
* holding backward prejudices unthinkingly and using all the above behaviours as barriers to budging from them.
* sarcastic sneery personalities.
* bossy personalities.
* not wanting to get involved.
* determination to remain noncommittal about a question of fairmess that is hurting someone else.
* emotionally cruel comedy, comedy about unjust social humiliations, personal unpopularity, or bullied histories.
* comedy about violence or violent intimidation succeeding.
* army bullying.
* bouncers.
* alpha males and cred.
* radical feminists who expect men to apologise for existing and to be blamed for every social collision with a woman.
* sexual harrassment.
* accusability of sexual harrassment for befriending or partner-seeking actions tnat arbitrarily are deemed acceptable for someone else to do.
* the high failure rate of partnerships and marriages, and the many pop songs about it that evidence its widespread emotional pain and the casual uncaringness often involved.
* bad neighbours.
* keeping aggressive dogs at the front of houses.
* macho initiation pranks.
* macho, but done by any gender, reacting with violence to being offended by words.
ANTI-RIBALD POLICY AND HOUSING
Convergently both from the autistic safe society point and from nuclear weapons, a need has been shown for human rights boundaries to hold against controlling or cruel social behaviour including peer pressure.Thirdly the same converges from the growth in appreciation of LGBT minorities. All were historically oppressed by peer pressure, derision, and group psychologies for conformity. In unenlightened company they still are, and that is exactly the cause of defining human rights protections for them.
All these strands convergently show that personally fair social interaction is made into a human right, itself, by being a needed part of upholding other human rights. Emergence of human rights against discrimination has already established that freedom of association does not include freedom of social rejection. That gets left as more ideal than real until the problem of these social behaviours is dealt with too, making it a duty to deal with. The historical role of those social behaviours in bullying minority groups out of sight, and even in long delaying the gender and autism-related minorities from realising their own existence, now shows those behaviours genocidal.
It makes it an act of genocide for anyone to make tough reality assertions that unfair hurtful social behaviours are a set fact of life that must be coped with. The contrary ungenocidal position is of a human right not to suffer those behaviours, including never to be forced to stay in any social setting where they happen. This instantly establishes as human rights:
* not to be forced, either by law or financially by fear of welfare sanction, to stay in a job or an educational course among committers of those behaviours.
* for children, not to be forced to belong to the same set of school classmates for a long period.
* to removal from any housing where you find the surroundings uncongenial for these reasons. However, because fairness requires it not be possible for the mob to force anyone out of housing, also a right to forced removal of the perpetrators while you stay put.
Do you see how these housing points are needed to end the evil of Glasgow territorial gang culture? Any rationally caring person who has been upset and angered to hear radio current affairs talk about “virtual street arrest” as a reality only tackleable by slow cautious community work, must have realised that the only human rights compliant response is an automatic entitlement to instant removal from any location where that crime exists. No, such an entitlement is not subject to availability of other housing: for it means an automatic right, not a politicians’ discretionary choice, to be accommodated in atypical emergency spaces, e.g. surplus industrial or office spaces, during the wait for proper housing, a human right to have the state choose that instead of choose to leave them in their housing in the crime oppressed location.
Equally logical of course, is for homeless folks the right to be accommodated in these atypical spaces in preference over the street, because at least they are places of shelter. Thus human rights would prevent it from getting argued cynically that there are business or property interests against using surplus spaces in this way.
The social behaviours to be excluded can reasonably be defined as “all unambiguous acts of laughing social victimisation, teasing, inequality of popularity, or shouting down of long explanations” and “any social tactic whose effect is to suppress your social equality, eccentricities, or chance to speak, without allowing you recourse to unintimidated discussion to defend your position”. These are the definitions I have used in an idea called “anti-ribald policy”, when struggling to argue for a reasoned social consciousness against the injustice of those behaviours before this opportunity came to claim its writing into human rights.
The idea of “anti-ribald policy” came from considering the difficulty of preventing malicious misinterpretation of arguments. How it often obstructs getting across new ideas and has made all sorts of minority awarenesses take far longer to be established than logically they should have. The word “ribaldry” stuck in mind from a TV comment on bathing abuse in care of old folks, done to them “with great ribaldry”. The word resonated with logical minds’ revulsion for rough-edged group atmospheres full of scornful humour. It was meaningful about social injustice, in a full descriptive way that just saying “humour” or “teasing” is not. It sums up how mob processes of rough humour and scorn are the way these things happen. You can observe a person being joky and jovial all day long, and yet find there is no positive character behind that when the same person turns intolerant and macho ego posturing in an instant of social collision.
Do you notice this in life? All ribald people, meaning anyone without a soberly serious and conscience driven character towards all aspects of personal fairness, can never be trusted to have a shred of decency or heart in them, the derisive tough manner’s whole basis is of actively enjoyed celebration of not having that. The thought of any hooting crowd clinging to a bigoted opinion showed how you can have a “ribald consensus”, where ribald passion to laugh at an outsider’s view guides a social circle to all hold the same belief without basing it on reason at all. Ribald consensus is an angle on crowd psychology, that a crowd may not even need to think an idea is right, they only need it to be funny. The fun is in the innate power feeling of doing harm and cruelty. Hence the popularity of racism and anti-immigration views: showing that ribaldry seriously affects politics.
Nobody can work responsibly in the support of any minority group, or of abuse survivors, without acknowledging that ribaldry is obviously one of the regular types of maltreatment of minorities. This makes it a genocidal act for anyone to want ribaldry to continue to exist, or regard it as innate to life, and makes that everyone who wilfully likes ribaldry or emotionally savage comedy commits genocide.
This fact both establishes, and suggests the template of how to enforce, a human right to median equal social luck. That exact wording proposed, to allow for lives’ varieties bit be tied to overall fairness: “median equal social luck”. This as a defined right is a natural logical part of non-discrimination for all the discriminated population groups, and for autistics as a group with disadvantage of social interactive ability.
It includes a further item worth stating and enacting distinctly: a right to be liked better than a person who has wronged you. It is obviously, automatically and always, an emotional abuse, an act of accessoryship increasing the wrong, and a violation of your human right to median equal social luck, for any person ever to express a social preference for your wronger than for you, or to choose that the wronger is their friend and you are not. Then it is the same violations for any organised group or web community to keep such a person holding any office over you. Thus it is proved a human right to have our state do, and a human duty for our state to do, to automatically have to criminalise those behaviours, and not give the political elite a choice whether to criminalise them. Where they come under emotional exploitation of vulnerable groups or violation of safe autism support, of course they are crimes already, and of the seriousnessness of potential to cause suicides:but they are not reliably pursued. Pursuit of the crime report I mentioned above will help force that to become automatic.
Another 2 social behaviours, that are not necessarily carried out in derisive manner but can be, are behaviours that all the social fairness provision deduced above necessarily debars too. Noncommittality, stuck to determinedly, not budging, about a question of faimess that is hurting someone else, wilfully deprives them of solution and outcome, it is an obviously cynical violation of the affected person’s inclusion and median equal social luck. So is what I propose to call the “don’t understand trick”. This is when a person or group misuses the claim that they do not understand what you have said, as a way to refuse to hear you: they justify cessation of listening, a switch into impatience or hostility, and brushing you aside, on grounds of not understanding. It is a behaviour used unfairly as their deliberate psychological barrier to having to hear a new idea or an item they would cynically prefer not to deal with and they fear you will say.
When a person genuinely does not understand, the fair course is to ask for further explanation at the points concerned. It is because committers of the “don’t understand trick” exactly do not do that, but instead behave such as to shut the topic down, that evidences how it is a trick. Hence, to define the “don’t understand trick” as an improper unjust behaviour violating human rights does not at all penalise folks for not understanding, or for having their limits of understanding. It just penalises an unjust yet commonplace interactive behaviour around the claim not to understand. Both the “don’t understand trick” and noncommittality need adding to the ribald behaviours and including in them. They clearly impact on fairness and inclusion in the same destructive ways.
Every act of unrepentant calculated ribaldry is fair to class as hate. But normal life experience shows it would be unfair and impractical to try to criminalise every act of accidental ribaldry when you cross a boundary under pressure or when it is hard to judge. It would be authoritarian and collide with other human rights to try to do that. Law always taking account of human fallibility is itself one of the fairness rights, and around social lines there is a lot of fallibility and pressures of a moment, often requiring compassion. It takes anti-ribald policy to allow the compassion to exist, yet it includes compassionate allowance for word slips and pressure of the moment in ribald actions. The same as in the fairness duty for a tolerant allowances approach to the language politics in autism, mentioned earlier.
So it is an authoritarian breach of human rights to criminalise all ribald behaviours. I confess that under the situational pressure of sustaining social ties as society presently is, I have instinctively made some wordplay witticisms that should not be made in a setting where folks are mutually observing an anti-ribald policy. Yet it is a duty to protection of human rights, discriminatory not to do, to criminalise actions of hate intention, which includes by the ribald behaviours. How are these 2 nearly conflicting pulls resolved? By the difference between blunder and unfriendly intention. Hence, the offence that is fair to define, is of – wanting the ribald behaviours to exist. It is not defined by committing them, it is defined by showing that you want them to exist.
This way, regretted accidental slips made in unclarity or the emotional pressure of a moment will not be caught. If a slip across a ribald line gets undone by uncorrupt serious talking, where everyone is required to be concerned compassionately with restoring the fairness balance for everyone, then no ribaldry stands and no wrong stands that anyone should be in trouble for. Also, importantly, committing return ribaldry in social self-defence after it has been committed upon you first will not be caught. But wherever ribaldry against an innocent person is intentionally allowed to stand, that is when a hate wrong has been done. Wellbeing based on equality and secure personal acceptance has been violated. Only deliberate unrepentant acts of ribaldry, that show the perpetrator actively wants the ribald behaviours to exist, will be caught. So will be their incitement, and incitements or acts of forcing people to spend time in ribald environments, and claiming that this will do good.
It is simply a natural progression of the protection of minority groups from hate, to detail its balance carefully like that. Using anti-ribald policy as the template clarifies how to restrain hate speech without curtailing free speech – it specifies that the curtailment is upon being first user of derisive social behaviours, which the hate content forms part of, upon innocent targets who have not already wronged you. But return use of those behaviours in social self-defence, which includes for scoring quits because that is socially fair, is part of the human right of self-defence. So discussion and research, on what the limits to hate speech should be and upon what the minorities’ situation is, can still be carried out freely. It simply needs to be only allowed to be carried out as an intellectual process in totally non-ribald environments, not by the ribald social behaviours.
The flaw in Marxism was that workers of the world can never unite when they each have their safety from each other’s ribaldry to lose as well as their chains. The peer pressured left inevitably tend not to like anti-ribald policy, as it would actually force them to socially tolerate differences of view, instead of use rejection, intimidation, and group purging to keep folks in line doctrinally. 1970s mass picketing was ribaldry. Protected personal fairness of social interactions naturally results in –
* Simultaneous human rights both to strike and to continue to work during a strike.
* that all the evidence and the reasoning from other human rights principles, raised from all sides, and whether cited for the mother or for the foetus, is entitled to be part of determining the human rights position on abortion. Including: that all women (or any childbearing gender identity) with any views have the right that their rights concerns and evidence may not be ruled invalid and excluded from the process, including by women of different views and their representatives.
ON REWRITING RIGHTS AND SCHOOL
For human rights to mean anything permanent, to establish anything that can not just be brushed aside whenever the political elite tires of it, items established as human rights have to stand, on the evidence that established them. There can be no power to decide to abolish them, for such a power negates their purpose, it would leave no strong states’ governments really accountable to them at all.
Simultaneously, human rights were determined by fallible humans, and it is not their purpose to become historical accidents denying and colliding with known facts: the effects of that would even be opposite to their purpose, and knowledge grows and changes with time. So they have to be open to adapt to new knowledge. How then, can they be adaptable to new facts, but safely not be changeable or abolishable by anyone’s decision? Related: what happens when 2 enacted human rights are found to conflict?
I submit that the last question answers the previous. If an enacted human right is discovered to violate another enacted human right, that must overturn it. It must then stand void and refuted to the extent that removes the violation. Innately to human rights applying, they apply to each other and that makes them changeable if one violates another. Their adaptability to new knowledge is there, it is that new knowledge can change a human right by evidencing that it violates another human right. Hence, the only way to change or abolish a human right must be to show that it violates another.
An example is that the development of human rights protections against discrimination, and the needs of socially vulnerable groups, abolish the idea that freedom of association could include freedom of rejection. Likewise, after starting human rights from the concept’s core moral basics, new ones can be deduced to follow from other existing ones, including from new knowledge or new sources. That is what I try to do throughout this submission: not propose rights as just ideas, that the political elite could choose to brush aside, but deduce them from other rights.
To work out all this protects my position as a contender that a human right is overturned. It means, I am not undermining the safe permanence of human rights by proposing a decision to abolish one, for I am not proposing that, I have shown above how logically to avoid proposing that, yet still to refute and overturn an enactment of a human right. The way is by showing that it violates other human rights.
Article 26 of the UN universal declaration calls it a human right for elementary stages of education to be compulsory. But compulsion to achieve educational tasks can collide with conditions limiting the ability to do that, e,g, dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD. Conditions have been discovered since the article was passed, and thereby have proved that further undiscovered conditions can exist, hence that all measures of compulsion are in the cruel and biologically violatory position of potential conflict with unknown limiting conditions to the students’ faculties. They conflict with the known conditions already. Hence, security of person and non-discrimination towards minority groups both factually refute any idea that compulsory education can be a human right. Thereby they abolish the idea. Upon it being thus established to be wrong to coerce educational tasks, homework immediately becomes further wrong in human rights terms, by how its nature, directly enforced compulsory work, fits the definitions of slavery.
How serious homework can be as slavery is evidenced by the child abuse of getting driven past breaking point of impossibility to sustain it, into a stress collapse. I am a survivor of that, in 1982 at an authoritarian school in Wales with militant ideas about high ability, that in fact got consistently bad results and eventually closed down failed, Balfour House. This was at secondary school level, but it evidences what is wrong with homework as a method. Parliament’s rejection of my petition 5 in 1999 on publishing that evidence deprived the process of determining human rights, of evidence. That being improper towards that process, it evidences a human right to a public awareness scale of publishing and publicising of any evidence on anything that could change the determination of a human right’s levels of existence, for or against.
This logically includes an automatic right for children and ex-children to air through the media when they have ceased to agree with how a powerful adult previously portrayed them through the media. Adults exploiting is such a well known concern and question when particular children are publicised, that this is a logically essential part of every publicised child’s wellbeing. I needed this to undo my school’s propaganda.
Plenty from other sources also shows how all working for an educational achievement, taking exams or assessments, disciplinably and in service of the teacher’s ambitions for you instead of your own, is captive life so fits the definition of slavery. There are many stories around of schools depriving children of their chosen subjects and forcing other subject choices instead, or when by luck of local placing reasons or parental choices a child does not get to attend a school that teaches a subject they wish for. These children had educational choices taken from them, those were violations of their human right to education!
Hence, other human rights are violated by the idea of compulsory education being one: and they actually include that compulsory education is evidenced to violate the right to education. You can of course have education without the institution of school, but wherever compulsory education is by school: the way that institution herds children together with incompatible peers long term, causing bullying, violates the rights to security of person and even to life, and the right proved above, not to be forced into ribald social environments.
So the right to education is to its availability and accessibility, including to your own choices of subjects, without any enforced work tasks, without an authoritarian environment, without long term keeping among ribald peers.
GENERATIONAL EQUITY
A full reckoning of these disastrous oppressions by the authoritarian school model will explode a cosy wish-fulfilling social prejudice held by many older people, who believe there are no serious wrongs in the lives of youth. There has always been a comfort wish to believe that serious wrongs existing in earlier periods have been irreversibly ended, then to a nasty ego-gratification found in using this claim to emotionally abuse younger people with attacks on their and their eras’ worth.
This is another population group prejudice, as much one as are racism and the LGBT and disability ones. Old against young, based on attitudes to their eras and on interpreting history selectively to fit the prejudice. The attitude well known as “young people today ..”, but the weight of social wrong it has done to all the generations born after World War 2 continues as we grow older ourselves. It is ribaldry: it violates the rights deduced above to fair social inclusion and median equal social luck. It is neither of those things to be excluded from equal esteem in relation to events and conditions experienced, and resultingly deemed breadth of life understanding, or to be treated emotionally unequally based on unequal regards held for your versus the older person’s eras, and personal qualities accused for your respective generations, and have it accused that equivalent or alternative superlatives can never happen.
It affects social treatment and inclusion. It even has serious unjust political effects, whose human rights impact of causing poverty shows it needs preventing. When older people hold a predecided egotistical prejudice to refuse to believe that poverty can exist in younger generations’ time, and are encouraged to hold it by the media, it actively allows economic exclusions and losses of opportunity to be done to younger people, recreating wide scale existence of poverty among them, while older voters refuse to see or believe that it is happening, and as a result refuse to see a need to vote against it happening.
I contend as one of the Thatcher’s children generation, that that is the actual economic history done to Britain’s younger generations since the 1970s. Of course, to get placed in poverty or under controlling threat of it, as an effect of a derisive excluding social attitude, is against 3 counts of human rights: the poverty, the derision, and the generational discrimination. Except where existence of physical means changes, any event that happened in the past is capable of happening again, and it is always generational discrimination to claim not.
So generation is proved to be another of the characteristics needing to be covered by the protections against discrimination.
It will have effects of forcing an end to the media consensuses that have already taken root for generationally iniquitous views of history. It will not stop the free speech if debating interpretations, it will only stop them presenting generationally hurtful interpretations on their own, as asserted facts or as the consensus view, without also presenting arguments against them. This follows the pattern of how to prevent bullying without losing free speech, generational hurt being a type of bullying.
Thus: the welfare state began in the 1910s, as strongly evidenced by the constitutional crisis around passing its first pieces in 1911, and that prejudiced belief in deliberateness of unemployment and softness of benefits existed the same in the 1930s as now. So the BBC and tabloids would have to stop selectively ignoring that and claiming without counter that it began in the 1940s.
On the widely resented generational bullying around glorifying the 1960s, claiming that a strikingly short-lived hence failed phase of culture c1966-70 represented a superlative of peace and love to brag about, the media will be in breach of human rights inflicting generational hate at risk of suicides unless it covers the unless it airs refutations of the superlative. These include:
* that generational bragging itself is unpeaceful and unloving, hence the act of committing it itself disproves that its perpetrators achieved any significant peace and love at all by the items bragged of.
* that the bragged period’s strikingly short duration makes it a failure, as any success in making peaceful society innately includes lasting longer, and longer than to become a generational divider between people of a few years’ age difference.
In the absence of any consciousness that generations are a discrimination problem, a position has developed around dealing with racism where folks now fear to be implied as holocaust deniers if they disagree with regarding the Nazi holocaust as unique. But Simon Wiesenthal did not: he worked on establishing long term pursuit of justice for all genocide cases and supported the Cambodian Documentation Commission on the Khmer Rouge holocaust. Uniqueness goes with complacent wishful belief in future unrepeatability, the opposite of Wiesenthal wanting his work to be a permanent warning to future repeaters. It actually denies part of the Nazi history: that Hitler himself was encouraged as a repeater, he told his top followers the world had not cared about the Armenian holocaust.
As part of generational oppression, the uniqueness idea has actually used the Nazis’ victims as a weapon for one social group to demean and exclude another ! Think through how obscene that is. A defined human right against generational discrimination including by means of nominating historical superlatives, stops that. So but actually protects holocausts’ victims, posthumously, from having that done with their memory, as well as the later generations who it would be done to.
The tyranny of how World War 2 has long been treated irrationally quasi-religiously as a whole list of superlatives of greatness and unrepeatability, with fierce offence taken at disagreeing with any one of them, has been a mass emotional abuse of generations. It has:
* thwarted critical scrutiny of some serious British actions in it.
* helped to enable modern recreation and entrenching of poverty and economic insecurity, as above.
* worsened relations between young and old and made them inhabit different social spheres, which could only help to increase crime between them.
* created divisions and conflicts in families, against the human right to family life.
* when the Soviet Union existed, let some leading opponents of nuclear weapons evade answering how they proposed to defend Western Europe from invasion or nuclear blackmail, just by conveniently taking offence at belief in the possibility, on grounds of the Soviet Union’s World War 2 losses. A defined human right against generational discrimination would have prevented that, because held them answerable to treat all generations equally, on invasion threats’ ability to exist, and on ability of a state’s present intentions not to be determined by a past era’s events.
SENSORY ISSUES, CLOTHES, TRANSGENDER
Another discrimination that has gone unrecognsed by the chance of where media elites’ interest falls, has been on biological sensitivities to clothes choices. These are called “sensory issues”. As they are physically real biological differences in the body, affecting comfort and through it ability to function well, they have a solidly real existence. They are identities every bit as real as the LGBT identities, why are they not as prominent?
Sensory issues have been scientifically known of for c 20 years as connected to autism and ADHD. They regularly occur as as part of that spectrum of conditions, but their definition does not confine them to those conditions, they could occur for other reasons. So they should be treated as their own separate category, in the rights against discrimination.
Sensory issues can occur in all the senses, where they can be caused by autism’s feature of receiving an overload of sense input unfiltered. But relevantly to clothes is when they involve the sense of touch. Here, they are sensitivities to touch, fabric texture or pressure, and heat. Any clothes choice that collides with one of these sensitivities can be uncomfortable, distracting, seriously irritating, or painful. Hence it affects at varying levels ability to function in important settings including employment and education. Hence, rules compelling the sensorily wrong clothes in employment and education affect unfairly access to means of economic sustenance.
Hence, sensory issues are a minority group human right which is violated by discrimination if they are subjected to any conflicting dress rules or uniforms. Their existence makes it a human right not to be under any dress rule, or any dress peer pressure, to wear anything you find physically uncomfortable. That means they abolish compulsory uniforms.
I have a sensory issue that is known recurringly in autism and ADHD, involving heat and fabric pressure: a need to wear shorts. I have identity feeling around it, as bodily wellbeing goes with expressing that visual identity. For 11 years now I have had it recognised as a medical need in my employment. Because that precedent exists, how then do school uniforms still exist? Sensory issues have proved them a human rights violation.
Sensory issues have proved it a human rights violation for the welfare system to coerce anyone to take a dress coded job, since years before the sanctions regime of 2013 was ever introduced. Hence, that it was ever introduced proves that preventable human rights violations are made possible and made to happen, even in the web era so even worse before it, by the media having wholly its own power what to choose not to cover. This is the same as has been how evidence against schoolwork breaking point pressure abuse is not publicised. Both prove that protection of all human rights requires an enacted automatic right to media coverage and public response from national politicians, for evidence from anyone on all types of violation that are not already in wide public awareness.
Bare feet are a sensory preference, hence a minority identity, yet the present cultural phase of disapproving of them has been allowed to grow, e.g, with Tesco and Broughty Ferry Castle museum banning them, in the time that sensory issues have been known. At the Guadeloupe summit in 1979, Amy Carter, daughter of the then US President, chose to go through a formal gift receiving ceremony in bare feet, and news footage records it. It is still the human rights precedent that the selective media power has never treated it as, while employees and school students have continued to have their feet forced into the discomfort of formal hard unairy shoes in hot weather.
Because the sensory issue requires it to be possible to remove shoes for comfort reason after coming out of a location of wearing them, a foot smell then resulting from unaired bad shoe design can not be a reason to forbid this removal, though it is certainly also a sensory issue entitlement for others to spatially avoid this smell until it wears off. Human rights therefore oblige that conflict to be resolved by a culture change to a more favourable view of the option to remove shoes upon stepping indoors, so that folks able do that confidently in plain sight do not instead wait until they are visually inconspicuous seated close up to other folks.
School dress regimes also still usually contain a gender and age discrimination against older boys, of not allowing shorts, which historically has been backed up by an illogical age prejudice about them in the bullying culture. Relief from heat or fabric pressure has nothing to do with age!
Yet even in an era hot on child maltreatment, media elite opinion has never mentioned, never been questioning or critical at all of, the national scale hate crime that a TV comedy, worse a frequently repeated one with cult popularity, sided with and gloated over school bullying including for shorts, in a way of portraying the victim as made into a comic villain, blaming the victim for that as well as laughing at psychological damage. This was episode 2:6 of Blackadder. Its siding with bullying for features that are not a person’s fault and villainising the victim for that, collides with a good human rights idea later raised by one of its own cast! Stephen Fry, who in his book Moab Is My Washpot defined tyranny as “a culture that demands people apologise for anything that is not their fault.” For the character shown the association with shorts was by a parental force that itself would be a child abuse crime in that life context, hence not his fault. But its obvious impact in real life was as a further terroriser of boys out of being able to wear shorts as their own choice, in schools allowing it, making them more likely to be bullied out of it or socially excluded with ribald hostility. This when bullying risks lives, causes suicide, so that any TV show siding with and taking part in it puts highly vulnerable real children in increased danger including of violence. All gender discriminatory too, with most girls having legwear liberty and no culture to bully it.
In a media held to account by automatic right of public scale airing of human rights concerns from any ordinary person, the post-Savile process of criminalising past TV practices towards children would have been made to include Blackadder. If this were established Britainwide it still can be, and in its trial the Nazi silhouette film on beating up Jews in the street can be shown as evidence of the ethical equivalence of a TV show taking part in school bullying, which action puts highly vulnerable real children in increased danger including of violence or suicide. Instead: nobody raises Blackadder when Rowan Atkinson campaigns for a view on the limits of hate speech laws, and nobody mentioned Blackadder when Chris Whitehead, the boy who broke the ribaldry barrier in 2011 enabling off the now regular summer boy skirt protests in schools to take off, won his award for it.
It is an unequal anomaly that school transgender support has taken off, but similar support for sensory issues, which are much less bodily drastic, had not. It is right and common sense that keeping irreversible measures out of it answers the sceptics whose concern is on irreversible measures. A recent court outcome on that should affirm that restraint, but that being sufficient, it should not overturn the whole idea of child transgender support. The abundant case evidence of the emotional improvements, releases, and wellbeing given by allowing and supporting children in their own choice of gender expression, whether the gender feeling involved turns out to be permanent or temporary searching, permanently establishes its human rights status under medical and biological minority groups. It proves unjust and part of the whole authoritarian error towards children, that the cultural period of intense paedophile alarm probably delayed the transgender supporting culture’s emergence.
Likewise, with parity, parents need to know that they will not be accused of neglect for allowing their child to practice a sensory issue identity that involves some bareness in cold weather. That takes making sensory issues a protected characteristic, and introduces a right to access to all world knowledge of the health limits to practising them safely. The web probably now prevents shortists from growing up unaware that we exist and in locations with nasally irritating air quality causing frequent cold-like symptoms: but a minority rights protection including against that situation firms that into place.
However, sensory issues rights would at last end the practice of junior school uniforms that require year-round shorts, whose not getting classed as child abuse in an era hot on that has just been corrupt. Yet for me the abuse was to chance not to get one of those uniforms. Sensory issue protections ahould prevent their abolition from resulting in disallowing year-round shorts from any child who likes them.
Transgender support’s human rights grounds, adult and child, include that it is a tool against gender discrimination. It is a good and fair protection, that because transgenderness exists, everyone becomes entitled also to use the device of an experimental switch of presented gender if it helps in a circumstance of fighting a discrimination.
Thus: I am a cisgender man with a soft character and no liking for masculine culture. If I was a schoolboy now, and in the average position of not allowed shorts either by rule or by bullying culture, and/or wished to escape from rougher sports for boys, and if the trans support genuinely included adequate keeping safe from bullying, then I would play transgender for the problem’s temporary duration. I have contributed this to the school trans debate from its start and spoke on it at Birmingham university’s autism/gender conference 2018. It shows that even when a supported child later turns out cis, they can have always known their mind and had a real sensible reason whose support was merited. I volunteered for discussion the concern whether I would be under pressure to do any unwanted physical intervention to my body, e.g hormones, to sustain the act, and whether this would become a dilemma.
CLOTHES’ GENDER EQUALITY
Sensory issues rights will force the law to be identical between the genders on what costumes are or are not allowed, and that all limits to decency are identical in all public places, they can not be different by cultural accident between places around water and otherwise. Which way the law on toplessness should go, needs resolving between the different camps of women who are offended by either answer: but they are entitled to force it to become gender equal either way.
On skirts: just from facing the question as a man, it appears to me that the reason why men have remained so strongly prevented from wearing them is fear of not counting as decent in them, with that open space under them. Women know that they are culturally accepted as decent in them, if any accidents happen with the shape. Men do not. That might be striking to say in Scotland, but it holds water because there is a difference of decency protection between kilts and ordinary skirts. Kilts are a wraparound with a double layering at the front, which lets the second layer be used to provide the needed extra cover when seated. So men who are used to kilt cultures feel established as decent in that shape, but still not without it, or in lighter more blowy fabrics than tartan.
The issue could be forced by having men object on equality grounds to decency of unkilted skirts on women. Has this been prevented by fear that such a challenge would be defeated if it was a man perceived as really wanting to wear a skirt regularly who was contesting against their decency? A shortist man like me has a sensory issue identity for a garment that assists free range of the legs’ posture. It includes keenness to end gender injustice around legwear, having suffered it in the school uniform problem, but it disproves really wanting to huddle legs together degradingly in a mini-skirt. So I should stand as genuine in challengjng here that I do not find ordinary unkilted skirts on women decent, until in reply women justify on grounds that apply identically to men too why they should be reckoned decent and worn.
The human rights of half the population were violated when the parliamentary clerks censored my full submission on petition 1411 in 2012, including censored that challenge out of it. It is loaded that they censored out too my reference to the constitutional iniquity of having half the population unable to wear a garment that our head of state regularly wears. It also is against the human right of self-expression for the parliamentary clerks to have a unilateral power to decide to disallow a full submission, not on grounds of unacceptable content but just of their judgment on how to handle the petition’s issue. At one point I even suffered that they gave me an ultimatum to credit my name to a reduced edit of the submission some of which misrepresented my position, or else be disallowed totally. Enactment of a human rights line against practice like that, is a duty under self-expression, democracy, and gender equality.
UNCRPD ON MENTAL HEALTH
The way sensory issues have been ignored mirrors disturbingly how the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been ignored in its finding against compulsory mental health treatments.
It arrived at that position on worldwide evidence of outcomes made worse, instead of better in the ways expected by doctors who wielded that power assuming they always knew best. Trampled life wishes, trauma from the loss of liberty, upsetting or life shortening physical health effects of the drugs, all are outcomes of long term distress, which by definition is not mentally healthy.
Criminal law exists to cover the question of violence by the prospective patient. Meanwhile, internment in institutions is a subjection to unseen and unprevented violence from the staff. Psychiatric Rights Scotland or its members are probably supplying you with cases of patients finding no state agency interested in intervening about such violence Parents of interned autistic patients are reporting no access to scrutinise how their offspring are getting treated in an institution where their confinement apart from family is already a distress.
Right now there is the scandal, spoken out on by the Cross Party Group on autism’s convenor – Sunday Post Sep 28, of expanded secure places prepared at Carstairs for autistics, not for any crimes, yet making it subject to an appeal process to get release, and restriction orders emplaced without trial at the hospital’s request. “A successful appeal to the Mental Health Tribunal requires a favourable report from a forensic psychiatrist with an appropriate specialism. There are few such psychiatrists in Scotland; not all are willing to act or to visit high security hospitals. They are inclined not to challenge the views of the hospital’s psychiatrist. When they do, the Tribunal is nevertheless inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the hospital. Family carers who dispute the hospital’s assessment believe that their own expertise is side-lined, both by the hospital and the Tribunal, and that only medical opinions are given any weight.”
Petitioner 1849 reports “They have been detained at the hospitals long beyond the assessment period because the restrictive environment and isolation from their families have made them worse not better. Drugs have been used inappropriately to manage their frustration and disobedience.” That is how, under society’s surface, doctor opinion is able to make life like in a tyranny with political prisons. That is why it is a duty to every human right around democratic society, to stop believing that compulsory treatment is scientific and to enact UNCRPD.
DISFELLOWSHIPPING AND RELIGION
Freedom of religion includes to change away from believing in a religion, either to another or not. Hence it does not include taking that freedom away from someone else, inflicting a deterrent consequence on leaving an organised religion to coerce folks to stay in it and obedient to it. That is what a practice “disfellowshipping” does, hence there is a human rights duty to ban it. In that submission I cited a duty to public health, as the enquiry was motivated by findings that loneliness impacts physical health, hence its deliberate infliction is an assault on physical health.
Disfellowshipping is total social shunning, including not speaking, inflicted collectively by the rest of the religion’s members. It can be imposed either for leaving the religion or for breaking one of its instructions, including instructed beliefs. If a person has obeyed an instruction to have no friends outside the religion, and if their family are all in it too, then disfellowshipping inflicts an abusive state of sudden total isolation, that the majority of people are emotionally averse to, including loss of family. Hence it is a deliberate use of loneliness to force the person back into line, or to frighten others. It intends to thwart exercise of freedom of religion. It, and to allow it by law, both break human rights.
The case of folks born into religions that disfellowship is the modern democratic state allowing primitive total violation of a population’s human rights around democracy and around gender justice, by accident of birth, on those influenceable by fear of loneliness. This is not something the media tell us about society. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in abstension from politics, including not voting, and hold an anti-LGBT belief. Hence anyone born into them as whole family background is born into a threat of thrusting into punitive isolation for voting or being politically active, or being out LGBT. They believe in an unequal view of women, even including that men are head of the family and should take the final decisions in marriages. Hence any woman born into them as whole family background is born into a threat of thrusting into punitive isolation unless she accepts an insulting backward nineteenth century social positon. Those are clear human rights violations, shocking in modern Western society, and make it another violation not to conclude a duty to ban disfellowshipping.
In any religion, ones without disfellowshipping too, and in militant atheism too, it is a violation of freedom of religion that families are humanly tempted to use emotional withdrawal of favour, or worse, breaches of relations, as a sanction of disapproval against a family member changing to a different point of view on religion. To be deterred from leaving a religion that disapproves of LGBT violates LGBT rights, to be deterred leaving a religion that disapproves of shorts violates sensory issue rights. Hence, that too needs to be defined as religious discrimination and as an attempt to violate religious freedom by emotional abuse, and specifically banned. Welfare rights need to not to leave folks dependent on their families’ economic goodwill for this reason.
There exists a cultural pluralist idea that religions should all be inherited cultural traditions coexisting in family bubbles. It is an irrational idea that violates and insults human rights, because it expects accident of birth, instead of a person’s own reason, to determine a person’s factual beliefs. Except where a serious crime gives reason otherwise, religious freedom of people obliges every religion to accept any person who wishes to convert to it. BBC Question Time once presented a Zoriastrian panellist as from “a religion that accepts no converts” as if this was an inocuous point of interest on a religion preserving itself. But of course it was discriminatory, racist, and excluding to the entire population outside hereditary Zoroastrianism, including ones with Zoroastrian beliefs.
I was shocked and offended to hear a BBC radio “thought for the day” in 1998, by a rabbi who claimed, not offering any facts for why, that it is “a tragedy” for anyone to leave the religious tradition they grew up in. She openly boasted with pride that she rejected folks from other backgrounds who came to her asking to join her congregation, and told them to go to “their own” tradition. That is identical language to racists shooing immigrants back to their own countries. It violated those folks’ human right to change religion. It would terribly hurt and scar those folks, cause them loneliness, and by it assault their physical health. It would cause bad views of Judaism, helping anti-Semitism. Peaches Geldof was a famous example of conversion to Judaism, and I had a schoolmate’s mother who had done it.
How dare a woman rabbi have the hypocrisy to find it a tragedy for women to leave women-repressing religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that do not allow them to hold religious offices and preach?! How dare she find it a tragedy for: folks interested in political activity to leave a religion against political activity, rejection sensitive folks to successfully leave any religion that disfellowships, anyone in Northern Ireland to change between its church tribes, paranormal hobbyists to leave atheism, LGBT folks to leave anti-LGBT religions, shortists to leave anti-shorts religions, evolutionary biologists to leave creationist religions, characters with a human rights fightback drive to leave religions that instruct passive letting go. It follows logically that human rights should only apply to and recognise and protect each religion, and each wing or faction of a religion, as a religion at all, on condition that it accepts converts, from all backgrounds.
Under the principle proved earlier that human rights can not be abolished by decision but that they overturn other purported human rights that violate them. All of the above other human rights featuring in freedom of religion overturn the idea in a later addition to the European Convention, that parents have a human right to raise their children in the religion of their choice. They only have a right to tell their children all about their religion, including atheism as one for this purpose, and to follow their religious conscience in their family life where not conflicting with the child’s other human rights. Already, right to life and medical treatment guide interventions to prevent parents in religions with aberrant medical beliefs from depriving children of essential medical treatment. Further, parents obviously have no right to force a child to share adherence to their religion it to forbid their child to choose a different one, including no right to emotionally abuse their child with threat of going to hell if they choose a different religion, or threat of disfellowshipping.
Being proved to risk suicides like the transgender martyr Leelah Alcorn, parents obviously have no right to force an anti-LGBT religious upbringing on a child with feelings of heing LGBT, an anti-shorts religious upbringing on a child who finds shorts sensorily comfortable, a religion with an unequal view of women on a girl, a religion against political activity on a child interested in political activity.
TICKETS AND PASSPORTS
Autism impairs small fiddly handling, termed “fine motor skills”, it coeexists wirh dyspraxia. That connects it to undexterous handling of small objects, including to a greater than equal likelihood to lose them. The discrimination issue around that raises a issue of safety for everyone in going around their lives, where an unsafe status quo has been accepted for 200 years, with media selected lead opinion never questioning it. Aired publicly in autism strategy guidebook An Ordinary Life Too, 2016.
Transport tickets are losable, and usually small. How it can be defended that our status in moving around can ever depend on carrying and showing any physical document, as it is capable of getting lost or stolen? The disaster that is done instantly to your life, your schedule, your finances, your whole personal safety in unpredictable quantities, if a travel document disappears? Your ticket or your passport, and identity cards in countries that have them as we nearly did. Whenever we are beyond walking distance from home, we are constantly in that danger, which at any time can horrifically wreck an entire day’s plans and throw us into an expensive emergency that the public are not taught any simple solution to.
The horror is that it has actually got more of an emergency and less solvable. It has become totally vague and noncommittal what happens. Mid twentieth century a parent was taught that to give name and address to a bus driver in an emergency without money. That no longer washes. In Victorian times, so I have read, if you were in an emergency without money you could admit yourself to the workhouse/poorhouse for the night, supposing you could reach one, every 20 miles in populated parts. Now, passport loss is such a disaster, losing all the biometric identifiers built into the paper, that when travelling abroad we are advised to carry 2 photocopies of our passport, yet we are not issued with 3 passports which would be more logical; and we are advised to ask our hotel to put it in a safe, yet that entrusts it to the hotel staff, I never feel comfortable with that.
Autistics and dyspraxics are a discrimination case for these systems’ abolition. This danger from travel documents’ losability is a disability discrimination against these conditions, because loss is a greater than equal chance in them. Then after the loss has happened, comes being worse off at the resulting emergency communication, at speaking to anyone, at trying to get a serious response without appearing to be a nutter, or if phoning is involved. But theft is not the victim’s fault, and loss of physical objects is a distressingly real human limitation.
To get rid of tickets and passports because of their greater than equal danger to us gets rid of them and the losability danger for everyone. Of course we are not free to abolish passports while other countries require us to show them; but in independence we would be free to require no successful presentation of anything losable at our own borders, and never to refuse anyone entry for being the victim of its theft during the journey. In time of devolved influence over borders we could cite it a human rights compliance never to be a penaliser of any traveller for passport loss.
International circulation of this human rights deduction would undermine the passport system worldwide. The requirement for photocopies already shows the passport system stretched beyond making sense. This issue publicly realised a bit sooner could have made it harder to perpetrate the Hostile Environment policy.
AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS TO DEAL WITH USA
Human rights are violated unless they are functional in unfeigned real life practice: that is the first test of their observance and first accountability needed to it. But they are not functional in unfeigned real life practice if they are ever subject to override at the convenience of diplomacy with another state.
That principle is citable in the situations concerned, whether or not it is written into a human rights bill, but writing it in builds up accountable operation: to have a bill to go straight to, to challenge under. Think of if that had applied to all Britain and its possessions in 1963, if it could have been used to prevent the Chagos Islands clearances.
If a human rights bill like you are considering got to apply to all Britain, the trick can be predicted that government would still hold it and this principle not to apply to the possessions not counting as part of the UK: but whenever there were court challenges to government over issues in the possessions, the principle would get a leverage in.
For us at present and a long time past, an item that no Western country’s media raises awareness of, we have had no means to prevent governments having cooperative relations with the USA that accept it violating the oldest human right of all upon us all! Rooted in the 1950s McCarthy era and got away with ever since, even President Obama made no known attempt to end it, the USA’s border control violates presumption of innocence of crimes, upon all foreign visitors. It gives a different worse status to folks who have any history of arrest. It allows itself to asess criminality of character from that history even though the person was cleared of the crime or never charged, so is innocent. Its entry forms have long asked “Have you ever been arrested or convicted..?” as a single yes/no question. The conditions in tour and cruise holiday brochures referring to countries’ entry requirements, where referring to the USA, specify an extra hurdle for people who have been arrested, even if it did not lead to a conviction.
While our governments can not abolish another country’s practices, they can withhold cooperation with their infliction, and that also forms a sanction against the practice’s continuation. That holds for both British and devolved governments, at all levels of having any dealings or regular working relationships with the USA.
In the development of human rights systems to date, we have been kept from having any leverage to hold governments’ choices in foreign policy and diplomacy accountable against violating our personal basic human rights. Because such a means’ existence is necessary to make our human rights real, you should write it in as being proved another human right itself. As I showed above concerning school, it includes entitlements to get human rights concerns a wide media airing automatically and not only at the media’s discretion. This scandal of US border control proves its necessity too. At the discretion of our media and political elites to accept this violation unfought, it has actually expanded recently: Canada now does it too,’ since it introduced a new ESTA system in 2016.
One consequence of the media’s choice to leave the public largely unaware of this violation is unjust embarrassment for innocent folks when the subject of travel to those countries arises socially. Another, is that if someone makes a false accusation against you that causes your arrest, and you are totally found innocent or not charged, that person has still wrecked travel to the USA and Canada for you, and placed you in that unjust social position around it; it is not their travel that is wrecked, not them placed in that social position, and they may never be punished at all because criminal pursuit of their action is at the police’s and fiscal’s discretionary choice. The responsibility not to be part of that human rights violation, is only met by writing against it into your bill.
When the described direct accountability to the people over this comes into functional existence, for either of our governments,, it becomes impossible for that government to maintain any of its involvements in any ties with the USA or Canada, including NATO military ties, trade and business ties made at any level, and police cooperation, until each country abolishes its system towards innocent arrested people.
An aspect of the presumption of guilt by the USA and Canada is that it discriminates for being wronged. That is obviously wrong in any situation. To get rejected for jobs or volunteer opportunities because you suffered an injustice in a previous place, because the new place expediently does not want to bother with the issue or assumes from it that you will be bothersomely sensitive. That clearly violates presumption of innocence about the problem concerned and punishes innocent suffering. Hence the oldest human right of all requires that there be added to the protected characteristics against discrimination, being a wronged person. That no person nay be discriminated against for already having been wronged.
1 OR 2 WORDS AGAINST ANOTHER
The obvious fact that nothing is ever true just because someone arbitrarily says it is, that truth is only established by substantiation, make it an obvious fact that nobody is ever proved guilty only on taking another person’s word for what happened. Nor 2 other persons’ words: they do not corroborate any fact just by being said, they only achieve corroboration when their information confirms or uncovers a fact existing outside simply being said.
This fact obviously makes it a violation of the human right of presumption of innocence, ever to be allowed to convict anyone of any crime on only witness testimony, and without the testimony uncovering or corroborating the detectability of a fact existing outside the fact of being said in the testimony. Being already factually demonstrably a violation, the violation is committed by anyone who does not include its prevention in any human rights bill or charter.
Gender discriminatory, hence human rights violating, campaigners to make men live at risk of conviction of crimes against a woman on just her arbitrary word, and with a presumption to take her word that violates presumption of innocence, argue that victims of those crimes have a need that is material to their support and life recovery, to be believed. The answer to them is that that need is separate from the criminal justice process. A victim support service or women’s refuge service, both of whose existences can be listed as duties to protect women’s human rights, naturally are tied to ethics of safe space support which include dealing with any apparent victim in a presumption of belief. Simultaneously, the criminal justice process has to operate presumption, of the defendant’s innocence until proved guilty on more than witness testimony alone. Those 2 different presumptions in different placed coexist, each in its own setting.
COURT COSTS AND ACCESS TO LAW
We all know that the human rights culture globally lists a right to access to law, but that its notional existence is made substantially pretended in practice especially in civil law, and sometimes in getting specialist content into criminal defence, by court and lawyer costs able to run to scales frighteningly beyond most folks’ means. Intentionally intimidatory and in making effective law elitist for a long way back into history, this situation’s existence obviously violates literal access to law, and so does accepting it when delineating human rights.
The injustice of the “innocence tax” in Englandandwales since 2012 has occasional media notice but has dropped out of daily awareness. Scottish government shockingly proposed a part copy of it, a defendant’s contribution. That is of course effectively a punishment for getting accused, a violation of the presumption of innocence. Any healthy write-up of human rights will include the fact of that violation, which is one whether it is written up or not, to help clarify something that it is a violation to choose not to clarify: that no law directing for presumption of innocence to be violated ever validly exists.
This also abolishes council tax summary warrants, which also are automatically abolished under any view that Scotland functions in compliance with ECHR in real practice. The Local Government Finance Act 1992, that created the council tax Britishwide, created only in Scotland a provision for councils to submit a written list if claimed debts to a court and have it signed by a sheriff without any defence heard from the accused debtors, claim the debt established thereby, and base certain revovery actions on it. Hence, ECHR is violated by anyone who says that summary warrants are still in force and have any legal existence.
I have experience of the summary warrant system getting proved to work wrongly. In 2011 I won case SQ 121/11 against a sequestration action by Edinburgh council, with summary warrants already existing for the disputed money, their issue logically proved wrong by this outcome at the stage where you do get to defend. This was without a lawyer, too.. It was a case that happened because the council had repeatedly annually ignored a council tax appeal and claimed the power unilaterally to rule that it was not a “relevant” or competent appeal, even though it stated a disagreement with my tax’s calculation and my reasons for said disagreement. So its outcome confirmed what the Local Government Finance Act already said clearly, that councils have no such power.
(I believe the council did it because I had found a way to claim for the same book of human rights evidence against authoritarian school as petition 5 was for, to be published as part of giving my appeal evidence, not even at the council’s expense.)
The autism book I have referred to before, An Ordinary Life Too, an autism strategy guide document, recorded in 2016 “every council a duty to include in its local autism plan a total ceasing to use the summary warrant system. No local autism plan is human rights compatible unless it includes this”. Has that happened, in the absence of an affordable route or regulatory mechanism to hold councils to ECHR when an enacted domestic law exists violating ECHR so basically?
Access to law or justice also makes all regulatory bodies that are created to investigate cases, obliged to act on cases because any personal injustice is at stake in them. It obliges them not to do what OSCR does and describes itself as created to do: only act on cases where it judges that the overall interest of charity regulation is served. That did not include a charity getting a bank to accept unauthorised signatures to close a group’s account and pay it to the charity, 1 year after the group’s members had been promised that could not happen.
That prohibitive cost to access to law or justice, and particularly when you are the side taken to court, breaks a human rights principle, is grounds for the state to have to annul those costs however that may change the way money circulates. It does not have to mean paying all the money out of taxation: for example could use a LETS currency for court work. Not allowing ruinous costs to exist is citable as a faulting under the court change (petition 6, EU petition 730/99), on human rights grounds, in any case where they arise. So it is there latent in the system, coming.
Access to law is not just about money. It is violated whenever you can not initiate a case, because you can not find a lawyer to take it, or initiate a particular dispute in a situation already in progress, because your lawyer advises against it. Lawyers’ regulator the Law Society always upholds this as your lawyer using their professional judgment. So I had no regulatory comeback against lawyers’ professional judgment not to pursue preemptively a conveyancing issue that led to a loss in a house sale. That being the same swindle as when also it ruled that when my lawyer changed his advice on a £1000 loss’s recoverability after agreeing to it, I the client was responsible not to have believed his earlier advice, and to have interpreted a selected one among many letters he had written 3 years before as showing me not to believe it.
Clearly from which, we are being given no human right of access to law and justice, or to receive legal advice, until the following specific details are written into it:
* a right to legal advice specifically on how to pursue any item of law, not only on whether to. So that lawyers cease to have the power to stop you pursuing it.
* the right to believable legal advice at all times and never to be held responsible by the lawyer or a higher authority not to have believed legal advice! Any rights to legal advice are a meaningless deception without that.
*the right never to have your lawyer upheld as allowed to give wrong advice under a situation’s pressure and not be held responsible for consequent losses. As in “It is to be regretted that he gave the complainer this comfort but I believe he was simply caught off guard by the way the situation developed.” That is quoted from a conveyancing case, but to imagine if that happened in a serious court case gives you an automatic responsibility to write this in.
NO VICIOUS CIRCLES
All the above court and lawyer issues show a human right as only complied with by being genuinely accessible to ordinary people in the circumstances of real life. This ties the legal profession and courts to determine human rights’ delivery by its real life practicality, and not to class a human right as delivered in name when prohibitive practical barriers exist to accessing it in practice.
Any position of vicious circle is such a barrier. A serious illustration so is the human rights to housing, and without avoidable obstructions to access employment as a route of subsistence. Both are violated by allowing there to exist the vicious circle where a person whose housing means are not of private buying has neither local housing nor employment, and finds great difficulty in getting either because providers of either tend to require you to already have the other. Governments have just treated it as part of the economy to let that happen, even in 1990s boom Dublin. A public consulted on human rights can, as I here do, cite those violated by allowing it to happen, which proves governments obliged not to allow it. The shown existence of a vicious circle thus forcing into law whichever exact discrimination prohibition breaks the circle.
Historically another vicious circle was mentioned in mainstream politics: that employment and previous work experience could only by acquired by having each other, yet we all start our working lives as with neither. It succeeded in causing governments to introduce other means of acquiring work experience. A human right against vicious circles agrees in principle with that outcome, but only if in compliance with work human rights it actually was waged work. Because since 1988 it never has been waged work, the right against vicious circles would not override the other human rights objections to unwaged experience schemes. Instead, because those other objections exist, including the evidence that exploiting unpaid and unprotected work experience places has instead undercut and actively reduced those areas of wage employment, the breaking of vicious circle towards waged employment was not achieved, and a human right against vicious circles would not serve as a defence of having exploitative cons in place of wage employment .
* It would stop all “benefits trap” positions, where a person on essential welfare benefits for specific needs loses them if they enter, at all, or over an hours limit, educational courses or employment that earns less than the loss.
* Enforceable school homework is banned by a right against vicious circles. That follows because a child can be blamed and disciplined for not producing the done homework but the teacher’s judgment that they can do it can be wrong, as it was for me, so that any step to contest the teacher’s judgment puts the child in worse trouble.
* Think of the civil liberty gain that all vagrancy law and rough sleeping law, and such thing as any law criminalising homelessness or begging, becomes invalidated and banned because it is a vicious circle to criminalise a person’s entire means of existing.
* If a mental health ex-patient is left still with cause to fear the service contesting their health, and liberty at threat from that, until a longer time after the treatment than is the time limit for a complaint against the treatment ti the NHS or GMC, they have been prevented from making it. That vicious circle adds to the grounds of a human right not to have compulsory treatment.
* It would stop the asylum system having its nature where seekers are kept in destitution by fear that accessing subsistence services will enable, at all or more easily, their tracing for deportations to major human rights violatory situations including risked life, without the court change (petition 6, EU petition 730/99) in operation against deportation decisions’ human rights merits.
Vicious circles over ending or redressing injustices commonly arise when different offices pass bucks. It follows that a human rights responsibility against vicious circles binds all answering authorities or public offices, at all times perpetually, to only give the actual answer upholding personal fairness, to everything. As described earlier, this too arrives at a human rights position that all parties delivering any service, including all public offices and caring agencies, and businesses in like role, have that obligation. They cease to be allowed to give any of the following specified types of answer :
* Be noncommittal,
* Use the word “unfortunately” or any synonyms of it, as a weapon to assert that an unfairness shall stand,
* Deny that they should do anything or answer substantively until an indefinitely deferrable eventuality,
* Ignore, or omit to answer, any of the entire content of the evidence available from the person being answered,
* Declare unilaterally that any step not reasoningly accepted as upholding personal fairness is “their decision”,
* “I’m sorry but ..” or “I’m afraid ..” or “I/we note your comments…” or “I understand how you feel but…” a tough bruising assertion of decision not to fix it.
* Declare unilaterally that any of these types of answer, or any answer not standing up to reasoning, is a last word,
* Assert that these are what people will do,
* Give no answer at all because of being prevented from giving these types of answer,Declare any matter of fairness closed, or unilaterally close down contact, before its entire content has been fairly answered, and at a stage preventing this from being ascertained from logical scrutiny of answers given.
Consider how much difference that will make ! Writing this into human rights is offered to you as an idea, whose merit is the opportunity arising from this position already being demonstrably established in fact. That by this, all types of authority become obliged to only ever take the line in support of logically reasoned personal fairness, on everything ever. They cease to have even in theory the authority to decide not to do that. Delivery of human rights logically includes responding to situations fairly, and logically is violated by a culture of instead giving the above-listed answers; so a human right not to receive those answers, from all types of office and institution dealing with the public, is logical to write in.
It is a vicious circle to be unable to stop a personal injustice standing done or said, because a party cynically refuses to say something that would undo it, and can accuse you of harrassment if you keep demanding they say it. Hence, a human right against vicious circles will forbid any laws if harrassnent from getting used for that purpose. It will forbid civil court costs or discretion over pursuit of crimes from being blocks to your efforts, and instead will force the law to side with forcing the party to say the thing, and committally not noncommittally.
The wholly media unreported scandal in the 1990s of insurance policies causing discriminatory evictions of unemployed people from travel accommodation still merits prosecution on the same international grounds of being a population persecution that applies against racist states and was used concerning population crines in the Yugoslav wars. It will be a case exampling and establishing this position against the inaction vicious circle, because in 1998 Edinburgh tourist board threatened me with a harrassment charge for keeping demanding that it end all listings and even a commendation!, of a perpetrator who I had won a small claims court case against. It also denied that that perpetrator’s surrender before the court case’s judgment point constituted me winning it or should be treated by them as such, “no judgment against the operators”. It is a human rights violation of access to justice to claim that total concession of your case actually takes the practical fruits of wonness away from your case! Accordingly, I record here my winning of that case, as evidence towards the due prosecution of that whole hotel scandal as a population persecution.
VIOLENCE NOT TO WIN
Basic to observability of any human rights or the civil order where they can exist, is that rational words and reasoning shall determine what shall happen, not physical strength. That the physically stronger party may not be right is what is wrong with anarchy: including the anarchy that strikingly is the condition of any discretionary law enforcers not accountable to human rights for their decisions.
Security of person includes not bring subject to coercive violence from any random party who chances to be stronger than you, or the mob collectively. That is violated if the police ever advise you to comply with, or live in a state of acceptance of, anyone’s threat of violence. But the abstract ideal of life without violence has not prevented the police doing that. Only explicit definition of that specific limit on their actions will accountably place that specific limit on their actions.
This redefines keeping order and ‘the peace”: so that its prinary purpose becomes to keep all individuals out of subjection to coercive violence, No longer is it to keep society as a whole at a median level of docility secured by calmness – that is an anachronism from pre-democratic history when that condition was defined as “the king’s peace”. Security of person also includes existing in a state of reliably known law, so it is violated by any laws of public order being imprecise and catch-all enough to give law enforcers the discretion to make it up as they go along, to define offending conduct on their own discretion about a situation. Folks have already challenged the “breach of the peace” offence as being that, and historically it was intentionally designed to be so, designed in pre-democratic history on docility assumptions opposite to civil liberty assumptions. Human rights clarity is served by clarity against validity of any catch-all discretionary laws like “breach of the peace”.
The combination of their existence, able to criminalise many actions that are much less than violence, with a discretionary lack of obligation to criminalise violence or its threat, falls under vicious circles too.
Examples of injustices to prevent are: I have had an experience when I reported a threat of violence by a street accoster paranoid towards walkers, to leave which standing was against the civil liberty of all his street’s residents walking along it, but reported it anonymously from a specially created email address, and told the police I would only identify myself after they confirmed tnat absolutely certainly they would not advise me to comply with the threat and would back up a defiance of it. They determinedly refused to do that and persisted in asking to make an identified report without any conditions. As a result no report was made, and I write anonymously to that whole street telling them how their everyday liberty required that promise by the police. The situation was neither civil order nor security of person for those residents.
An explicit human right for all coercive violence or its threat to lose, synchronises perfectly with anti-terrorist objectives. Thus it would have stopped ITN long term persistently crediting the Eastbourne by-election in 1990, caused by a terrorist murder, witn causing Margaret Thatcher’s fall. It synchronises perfectly with stopping toxic masculinity, as it bans all idea of defending personal honour by violence, and of replying to offending words by violence. It would stop comedies portraying successful use such violence or its threat as a fact of life and as funny. When you try to list all the instances of that, you find shockingly that nearly comedy has done it at some time, and every time it embeds that attitude intor eal situations so is incitement.
In a case like when the mob in Portsmouth 2000 gathered around homes of unconvicted folks entitled to presumption of innocence who it accused if being paedophiles, and openly declared to TV news that they were there to intimidate, and apparently were not arrested for that, the police would not be allowed to tell the innocent people that they had to surrender to the mob and ove away, they would automatically have to arrest every person who declared intent to intimidate, unconditionally regardless of their view of its effect on the mob’s overall mood, or of cell capacity, using emergency unorthodox holding places in the absence of cell capacity. Likewise when some newcomer whose politics the mob thought it disliked was driven out of Welsh village Blaengarw in the miners’ strike era, and this boasted of approvingly by a promoter of a community video from there in 1987.
Though threats of violence can only be criminalised on evidence that they happened not one word against another, what can and should happen on a victim’s word is support to act in defiance of the threat. This is both for its own sake as the exercise of personal liberty, as part of the victim’s right to that, and as part of investigating. Where the victim consents so and the risk does not appear to be of their murder or permanent grave injury, their entitlement to overturn the threat includes for this action to be a sting operation trying to trap and incriminate the threatener.
Further on sting operations. Starts refusing to carry someone, or refuses to either sell you the right fare or hand back your money, or refuses to believe in one of the route’s stops, or drives with passengers aboard but “out of service” on the front so as not to bother picking up any more, are all actions I have actually seen by rogue bus drivers. Hence, state’s validity as a free society hangs on the automaticity of every detail of the following. Security of person in using buses gives us the automatic right, after encountering a rogue bus driver, to have a sting operation organised with the police to have them arrested, where also automatically not discretionarily the police will have to arrest any passenger who intimidates or uses threat of violence in arguing for you to surrender to the driver to let the bus proceed, and any traceable recorded or otherwise evidenced passenger who did that during the original incident.
CITIZENSHIP
Security of person also includes citizenship, and permanently clear surety of it, not the Hostile Environment which was a population persecution. When we were in the EU, its petitioning system gave me means to put a national scale human rights item on record as a citation of ECHR as part of EU law. So it was a citation of ECHR, creating a legal resource for all to use, not a requesting petition, and its use is to prevent another population persecution, in the event of independence.
1448/2014, lodged during the referendum, it started from the undeniably petitionable grounds of our electorate’s awareness of the issue, as an aspect of the independence mandate if Yes had won, then asserted the human rights demerits of the actual issue. It cited from ECHR article 8 family life, that it will oblige the EU to disown shun and sanction Scotland as an international pariah racist state and make no dealings with us, unless – our citizenship by parental descent is unrefusable.
Calling any category of citizenship automatic can be problematic, as a person with several possible citizenships may not want the one that some official wants to deem automatic. Some folks with the potential to have diaspora identities bond instead with the society around them and identify with the country they are in: and inclusion and life practicality both entitle them to that option too. So, unrefusable is a more reasonable red line word than automatic. So I have no problem with requiring that claimants to descent citizenship take an active step of choice for it: but what obviously must be automatic is that they get it. That is, it must be unrefusable.
This the Yes movement or Scottish government have never yet been wiling to say, in the modern period of independence issue. In the SNP’s voter base and then in some interpretations of their theory of “civic nationalism”, there has existed a prejudice for the homegrown community, for seeing of even the close family diaspora as outsiders and wanting to define Scottishness by residence here. This hypocritically while also calling emigration a Yes issue! Pursuing this issue with independence supporters often encounters a sick strand of thinking that to reject belonging to a nation by the parental route, and reject emigrants’ offspring from being Scottish, must be progressive and virtuous because it shows a line against a genetic view of race. The hard left of their movement, like Radical Independence, find this a fit with Marxist theory of nation. But as well as simply being xenophobic excluding and hateful, this line breaks apart families. Nationhood by parentage is the practicality of folks’ ties to their families, to the places where their families’ lives are rooted, and to family’s mutual support and sharing of resources. All nothing to do with genetics and long predating all knowledge of its existence.
Exclusion is racist, inclusion is anti-racist, yet I have actually encountered nationalists including an Open University boffin and a Radical Independence stall, who claimed the direct opposite. To conclude that an exclusion is scientifically virtuous and overrides conscience about it being exclusion, is exactly how folks supported the Nazis, and nineteenth century colonialist theories about skull shapes. To refuse citizenship of their own country, to a person who is born in diaspora to emigrant parents and does not chance to be resident here on independence day, to make them unentitled to caring services and even to refuse them residency, breaks up families inhumanely and purges a population subset of the nation. It stops families from living their family life together or in proximity, stops them giving each other practical care, stops them pooling their resources and giving each other economic refuge in time of need, stops them sheltering each other from the Tory benefits regime which those now located in rUK would be abandoned to.
Scottish nationalism has failed to have diaspora-born definitive names in its history, as Irish has Eamonn da Valera and James Connolly, Welsh has Dafydd Wigley and Saunders Lewis. The deficiency shows. But it now has Angus Robertson, Lesley Riddoch, Iain Macwhirter, Mike Russell. But the onus is on them to explain why they support a movement which wants to give automatic citizenshp only by residence or birth, and I have experienced Riddoch dodge the question in a meeting. Just as there have been Tory ministers willing to introduce anti-immigration measures that would have kept out their own parents, existence of these 4 does not disprove that Yes stood on the line described on citizenship by parental descent.
During that campaign, MP Angus Macneil mocked through the Sunday Post 23-2-14 counting as Scottish anyone who has never lived here, Jim Sillars told a big Yes audience at Liberton school 7-5-14 “We can’t have an open door” and that he wanted the diaspora-born to be treated as immigrants and filtered for skills, “and we must not be afraid of this”, Alex Neil, who confirmed at Tynecastle school Yes meeting 12-3-14 that descent citizenship would be refusable and said it was because of “undesirables”, which could easily mean the poor, and Pat Kane at his Stevenson lecture 19-3-14, who explained civic nationalism as a project for the resident society’s benefit, selecting from the rest of the world as benefits us and he would be first to call any more openness wrong The team at Leith who wrote the policy told me that “any discretionary elements” would be decided in the statemaking after a Yes vote, meaning there could be refusability. Alex Salmond on his last phone-in gave me no direct answer in it. These all confirmed and evidenced that strand of thought against our close diaspora and their human rights of family, which motivated 1448/2014 urgently against it.
As an acknowledged part of the ECHR observance intended for a Scottish state, unrefusability would stand protected, so that a future bigoted government could not simply at will legislate to change it. That holds regardless of whether we join the EU, but if we do, the principle’s Europewideness will be established.
All such establishings help towards pulling the free world out of the anachronistic jumble of historically accidental citizenship rule gaps for each country, into human rights observant minimums. Allowing dual citizenship is another that, so modern life evidences, follows from article 8 as part of family life: spread out families. That is a point that Scotland’s plans have right and some other EU countries have wrong. It is never fair towards either family or internationalised modern life to retain historically accidental bars to dual citizenship, and it has conflicted with the EU’s purpose, that it has allowed any of its members to do that. The human right againat vicious circles bans evil unjust situations where a country disallows dual citizenship and another country disallows renunciation of citizenship.
It leads to an overall principle that folks are entitled to citizenship of countries that they have any connections of personal background including near family, or of life location, with. This follows as being a human right itself, from every human rights aspect of citizenship. Instead of relying on the politicians to include all the details and not miss anyone out, it is better that this human right adds in too that everyone can contend from their lives any type of connection of these natures that has yet to be covered.
The convention to include birth in the list of items that give entitlement to citizenship comes from the practical need to be an accepted person belonging in the society around you and receiving services like health in the place where your life starts. This usually matters practically. Hence, its justification is nothing to do with “birthplace racism”. To drop citizenship by birth in belief of proving a point against birthplace racism would be just as racist itself, because excluding and denying a life practicality, as is the scandal of wanting to drop citizenship by parental descent in delusion of proving a point against blood racism.
Birthplace racism is a proposed term for the vile bigotry of school bullies and thick yobs, who regard everyone’s country as dictated by their birthplace. A chance location of one unchosen event, has nothing whatever to do with dictating anyone’s identity of place, and to believe it has is a particularly oppressively random type of racism. e.g. it spitefully divides siblings in the same family. It has been visibly inaccurate to life ever since the Babylonian exile of the ancient Jews 6 centuries BC. In the mobile modern world folks often don’t grow up in the same place as where they were born, or have any family roots there, or even remember the place or ever return to it.
That all proves it a human right to disclaim or renounce a citizenship by birth, it can be a false positive and completely foreign to the person’s identity. But the converse, to have that citizenship, was missing from the independence White Paper policy,, surprisingly against an older SNP pledge: the policy confined it to peexisting British citizens, for folks already living, and to having a Scottish citizen or permanent resident as parent, for future births. That is racist: the born baby had ties to practical life regardless of those accidents of background status. British citizenship by birth has had racist exceptions since 1983, introduced by Thatcher, highly ironic for the anti-Thatcher Yes movement to want to keep.
During the referendum I met online a grievous case of this. A member of the Disqus commenting system, with the damning username “Without Heritage”, was born here 1984 to parents who were only here on temporary student permissions. As a result he is not allowed British citizenship or to live here, in the place he has to go through life declaring as his birthplace and is bonded to. He was now in the US. I had to watch him learn that the White Paper policy had let him down. I have here proved that against human rights, and for anyone to use the word “unfortunately” or synonyms about it, or to argue that personal rejection ever serves wider interests.
2 humanitarian shockers on exclusion from tha nation, in the independence plans, that have stood ever since the White Paper: on birth and on parental descent. Human rights not just proposed as political ideas, but derived from other human rights, with a meaningful place to submit that derivation to, overturn both. They need overturning, in time, before independence comes. That proves that protection of human rights needs to include frequent or perpetual existence of a process like this.
court change 