Do you notice what seriously fair moral prize and deliciousness comes together from several of the strands established on this site? Put together, THEY CREATE A HUMAN RIGHTS BAN ON HUMAN NATURE! ON THE WRONGS OF NORMAL SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.
The human rights submission made to Scotland’s “All Our Rights in Law” enquiry effects most of this, and creates the real done point of human rights action where the claims are submitted. From that point forth, the world edifice of human rights stands confronted with, for its response, the derivation of this case made from already established human rights. The submission, as shown on this site, submitted this derivation putting into effect cases that human rights include: anti-ribald policy, banning of all the classic bureaucrats’ answers, generational prejudice, sensory issue identities, and birthplace racism, and that every uneradicated nasty social behaviour’s existence legalises nuclear weapons. The part on bureuacrats’ answers already had a circulation long before and independently of this submission, for as described it had been attached to a crime report whose attachment in turn to the outcomes of a policy strategy on autism made its pursuit automatically obliged. But this was cited in the submission too, bringing them together. Tied in here too, and established via minority needs too, is of having no oppressive nonsense concepts of “cultural appropriation” or “community leaders”.
The pooled outcome of all these is that everyone has a human right never to be treated contrary to logically reasoned personal fairness and median equal niceness, about everything ever. That means –
- no successful violence or ever being allowed to side with or agree with it, either seriously or humorously.
- no toxic tough lad character types, or being what they call “real men”,
- never being allowed to socially prefer a wronger over the person they wronged,
- no one-sided identity politics with dogma prejudging who the victim group always is.
- no ribaldry,
- neither making nor liking of socially cruel comedy,
- no laddish assumptions instead of logic, about anything,
- no calling it “life” or “realities” or “the way it is” or “way of the world” or “the cruel world of..” or “unfortunately” to assert toughly unfair things upon another person’s situation,
and indeed no saying “no …”as a dictatorial shutdown of what the other person has just said. It is a human right never to have your statement X brushed aside with “no it was…” Y, not with reasoning but declared arbitrarily. Or “no..” a completely different statement, made simply pushing yours out. Both of those uses of “no” are oppressions of say, hence precivilised character. Caring and rationality both are about stopping expression of that type of character one upon another, - No agreeing with such inflexible procedural rules as to have personally cruel effects, in borders, education, employment, transport, building planning.
- Upon ordinary folks just as much as bureaucrats, automatic obligation to give the personal fairness answer to any personal fairness situation ever.
Human rights ban the wrongs of normal social behaviour. THIS ESTABLISHES SO!
So value that, value a recorded posterity for it, seize on it to cite until it gets widely recognised, make use of it to help secure all this!
court change 