Friday, December 22, 2017

Scary stuff a world without rights

Human Rights Obsolete?


In the absence of truth
(A law to guide use)
Their is no right or wrong,
and the need for A umpire 
is removed.

It seems some of our government officials have decided our country is performing so well in upholding the rights of Australia citizens and residents that we no longer needs a watch dog to ensure these standards are maintained.  The NDIS in NSW has argued that since the introduction of the scheme is now ensuring the rights of people with disabilities the role of disability advocates has become redundant.

Recently I had a discussion with a colleague about the validity of the human rights at all.  Who decides what is right and what is wrong anyway?

It is my personal belief the smoking is wrong and removes the freedom of others to be in a 'cigarette free environment'.  Someone who is addicted to this legally drug may not agree.  Give recent changes to the laws around 'where you can and can't smoke.  Seems to point to many others sharing my beliefs.

This gives some evidence that there is a sense of 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'. In Australia this is know as the 'law'.  Let's take the example of murder.  Australia law makes it illegal to take the life of another person.  So one might ask 'where the truth behind that law has come from?' 

Is or should the law be based on a general consensus of what is right?  Is that how truth is decided?  On moral consensus?

So this posses a difficult question what is moral is a society where their is no absolute truth and I am not allow to decide on right or wrong?  

Who then has the right or moral responsibility to set the law?  The government maintains the citizens of Australia give them this responsibility where we vote.


'Morality' is based on the principles of what is wrong and right or bad or good. It seems Santa Clause may have some experience is this area.  However what does he and his elfes use to measure good or bad?  Is it now political correct that Santa must not label any one 'bad'.

Gee, now I in hot water, if I am using Santa as a point of reference as their are many in our community who don't celebrate Christmas and it is becoming political incorrect to say Merry Christmas were should be saying Happy Holidays.  Even Christmas has been reduced to just time out.

So my endeavour to use Santa as my point of reference for what is 'right and wrong', might not be helpful.  This tends to support the general consensus should give rise to what is moral and what is thus lawful. However I not willing to be defeated the must be something that underpins 'what is right and wrong' under the law.




Personally  what I consideration moral or ethical are based on my Christian beliefs. Beliefs that are found on the Bible. During 2017 I have been corrected on more than once of the relevance of the Bible which I still personally belief is the Word of God and there for The Absolute Truth.

Some will argue the the bible no more than a 2000 year old text  that is no longer relevant in today's society.  The recent debate on same sex marriage highlights this.  'Christian law tells us that marriage is between man and women.'

The bible from its opening page spells out the different roles of men and women.  It said God gave women to man as a companion to care for his needs, and to man he gave the responsibility to care for the women and teach and correct her in the ways of God.  Both man and women are accountable to God by Christian law. 

Claims that bible is no longer relevant due to it's age a faulted, on the grounds that statement is incorrect. The text which Jews refer to as "The Law or Truth", that Christians refer to as Old Testament - or Law establish by God"; That Muslims refer to 'claiming the truth on Allah;  That Jehovah Witnesses "Inspired by god and useful in the teaching of the members' 

This ancient text which four out of five world religions claim to hold some version of "The Truth" back dates to prehistory. It was used by Jews and Muslims long before the birth of Christ.  The bible itself claims to be a record of history,  In the beginning . . . The Old Testament points to the New Testament where the convenient between man and God was established, and this is what today's law and order is based on.   

Attempts to dismiss these ancient teaches that are clearly  far older than 2000 years.   The bible has more original manuscripts that any other historical text written at the time.  Yet some many are willing to dismiss its validity and thus relevance. Much of the historical context is claimed to be fiction and the new testament fabricated by by the early Christians church. However does its 'law' still have relevance today and is this where the principles of morality derived?

The law in the bible is based on what has become known as the Ten Commandments.  These are said to be give by God (Jehovah/Allah) to Mosses.  These were the laws God asked the Israelites to keep. This is a coverent or law between God and his people,

This law or code of conduct proceeds Christianity by 4,000 or more years, and many were following this text long before the birth of Christ and the Christian Church.  The bible as we know it today is a collections of texts written over a period of thousands and years. And was canonised by the Church of Rome in the 5th Century. So while Christianity is almost 2000 years old the current form of the book referred to as the bible. 

Those claiming this text is irrelevant can't even ague on historical truths, need a lesson or too in Ancient history,  A cannon is a text or group of books used by religious groups as 'rules' or 'measuring sticks',  Australia was found by explores who professed the Christian faith, our forefathers chose  to use the rules written the this text as the base of the law as we know today.

The bible is still refer to as the bases of our government procedure. Law and order needs to have so bases. In a moment we will look at the ten commandments with all religious except Buddhism acknowledge as being the law or moral code on which their aceint text are based and canonise.

As I Christian I believe the true author of the bible is God,  Just as he ordered Moses to write down the law.  He gave the words to this people.  A convenient between God and man.  The Abosolute Truth to which I refer to as being the bases of Australian Law.

Since I have established most of the worlds population believe the ten commandments give us our moral code. This is the reference  point for morality - 'What is right or wrong; good or bad."

Ten Commands 


  1. You shall have no other goes before me. 
  2. You shall have no idols.
  3. You shall not take my name in vain.  
  4. Keep the Sabbath holy. 
  5. You shall honour your father and mother. 
  6. Do not murder. 
  7. Do not commit adultery. 
  8. Do not steal. 
  9. Do not bare false witness. 
  10. You shall no covet. 



The first four commandments pertain to God (Holy Trinity, Allah and Jehovah) and his covenant with his people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind.  This about respecting God and his law.  That respect extends that Australia Law.


Unless you an atheist most people believe in a higher power or supreme being, so the moral code that steams from the Ten Commandments would also pertain to these people. The commandments are almost universally accept as a code of conduct.

The remaining six commandments relate to the respect for other people and their property and pretty much unpin all our laws and the universal law guarded by the United Nations and the International Court of Law.  

The International court of law hears cases such as war crimes.  Their is a general consensus that even in times of war their are some acts of crudity that are not accepted. Such as unlawful imprisonment of innocent people, crimes based on gender, race or religion. detion without trial, mass murder, especially through the use of chemical weapons. 

Leaders of countries cannot do what the want.  They are accountable to their allies, the UN and the International Court. The League of Nations formed in 1945 following world war II this was the forerunner of the United Nations which now has 91 member countries. If was founded to try to maintain peace and security. 

The Human Rights Council was the governing body established by the UN to protect the human rights of the citizens of the world. The Charter of human rights is based on the premise that the citizens of the world were all born free and equal. Thus all citizens of the world must be treated with dignity and respect. No discrimination can take place on the bases of gender, race, age, religious beliefs or perceived disability.  

Thus the human rights council is responsible for up holding the principles of what is moral right, ethical and decent.  Which I would ague is founded on the ten commandments. It is the UN role through the human rights council to whole the nations of the world accountable for the way its citizens, residents and intended residents are treated,

I believe without such account ability through the Human Rights Council and the respective Human Rights Commissions in each member country that the moral breakdown in modern society would our.  

For me now more than ever disability advocates and human rights campaigners have a greater role in holding the decision makers accountable for ensuring all Australian residents and those who visit our shores are treated equally under our laws. 

Remembering there are still residents who because of disability, illness, race, religious beliefs, those with literacy and language challenges  or even legal migrates gents who have no say in developing of laws or accessing the Australia legal system. Every Australia has a right to be herd ans a right to defend themselves against accusations.  No one should be in custody or given pardon without accessing our judicial system.

No where is it more important to voice our collective objection than for thus who seek refuge and asylum in a propitious nation like Australia.  Law breakers or not these people to have the right to tell their story before we collectively say they are wrong.  If the Human Rights Commission is removed then who become our referee?

Its all scary stuff if you ask me. 
  
         


  

No comments:

Post a Comment