The Relativity of Some Human Rights – Do Socialists and LibDems see it when they clash and the high cost of short-sightness and institutionalised complacency?

THIS IS A SERIOUS WARNING FOR UK CITIZENS – Your Rights are under threat.

(Please read this in conjunction with the Left’s Ponzi culture.

Some human rights are absolute – rights in relation to colour, race, religion, gender and suffrage. And it’s not wrong to label those rights singular and equal.

Some human rights, however, are relative to each other.

In their pursuit of Equality, the profound mistake of Labour and the LibDems is to treat all rights as equal and assert their singular imperative, often for their own narrow, selfish benefit.

They believe that the only rights that matter in a Marxian defined class war are those they deem of the “disadvantaged“. The tragedy is that they ignore totally the rights of others when they conflict with them, and they leave themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy.

No wonder they lose elections.

 These rights are plural, not singular, consistent with my oft-repeated reminder that we are equal only sometimes, unequal most times and different always. And people like it that way.

The latest manifestation, the arguments about transgender rights and islamophobia that are contorting the Labour leadership election. When rights conflict as they do here, equality is supremely irrelevant. Fair play is the only solvent with give and take.

 See this in the Middle East. See the rights of Israelis and Palestinians as singular, simply equal rights to land, see the Palestinians in Gaza as the disadvantaged, then a two-State resolution is the only logical solution but it is dangerously misplaced.

When Iran and many in the Arab lands say that they want to erase Israel off the map altogether and give a right of return to the Palestinians, other rights come into play.

Iran is paymaster to Hezbollah and Hamas with the same intention. Arms them with thousands of rockets. Has nuclear aspirations.

 Israel, seeing what Shiites do to Sunnis, Sunnis to Shiites, and what they both do to Christians – death and destruction and millions of refugees seeking asylum – there is only one right that matters and that is the right of self-defence. Some remember with feeling the consequences of international indifference to similar threats from Hitler in Mein Kampf. Sadly, many others clearly prefer to forget them altogether. Forget too how Hitler was allowed to rearm.

Efficacy is more meaningful here than proportionality.

Proportionality really relates to the location of international concern and maybe anti-Semitism can have something to do with that.

While Israel feels it necessary to assert its right to self-defence against its sworn enemies and with no reliable guarantee of outside help, the two-State solution will remain a mirage, the 70-year war will continues as will the plight of the Palestinians. Is that what you want?

Meanwhile when the two State solution is currently impossible, the Palestinians have other rights, the right to compensation – not the only ones as nearly one million Israelis have lost out when expelled from Arab lands, another reason why the Palestinians’ hope for a right of return is moonshine. The Maoris had to settle for that in New Zealand and the American Indians in the USA.

 Equality gets you nowhere slowly and prolongs the agony. Fair play is the only hope for peace.

 Come closer to home – School

Yes, many kids have an equal right to go to a University, but others have a right not to go, to learn subjects suitable for a non-academic future – a different curriculum altogether that they will enjoy and not see themselves as failures. And for those with a right to go to a Uni, equality denies them the bursaries and scholarships that would encourage excellence in those areas of activity where excellence is needed but, of course, is unequal.

Many kids with special needs have a right to go to mainstream schools, but many others have a right not to go there, a right to specialist teaching and caring with others with similar disability or difficulty. A right to avoid the bullying that is endemic in mainstream despite best endeavours to prevent it. Diversity should pre-empt Inclusion.


Meanwhile Remainers lament the skills we need but can’t import from Europe and the high priests of the educational establishment fill the columns of the Times Educational Supplement bemoaning, explaining dealing with unruly classroom behaviour. They never acknowledge their own contribution to both, their all-embracing Inclusion agenda toxic.

 On the Roads

Cyclists have a right to cycle – to the new right, to clean air Ho Ho! But other road users have their rights too. Many more of them without garages have a right to expect that the Government will ensure that there are fast chargers to enable them to buy an electric car and find their way to clean air, safer and with wider appeal. As I write at last this is being recognised.

 Again, equality is a useless word here. Fair play for all a much wiser approach. I repeat, when rights collide, fair play not equality should resolve the conflict.

Kafka’s Cycle – Slow Death of a Complaint

One last example that affects me personally. I assert my right to Freedom of Expression. I echo popular discontent with authority. The bare bones of this here.

I complain about a proposed cycle lane on Gosforth High Street in Newcastle. Much later I am vindicated as the plan is quietly dropped.

Meanwhile, I complain to the Local Authority, then to the Local Government Ombudsman where apparatchiks give a clean bill of health to the City Council. I want to initiate judicial review. I allege bias, an established legal ground for it. The covert presence of the autophobic cycling lobby Sustrans in the planning department toxic.Their vision, many more cyclists, many fewer cars, not just petrol and diesel, and slower traffic. I provide evidence in a 100+ page dossier. Two lawyers in Bindmans LLP say the case would be “bound to fail” and decline to write the pre-action protocol letter. A third, their senior, endorses this. I try, unsuccessfully, to question that. I do not believe that my case is TWM, totally without merit, the justification for their stand.

 I believe that they gave me wrong advice. I write up the whole sorry saga in Kafka’s Cycle, slow death of a complaint, a case study for students of law, politics and sociology.

They then assert their right to protect their reputation, the writer not heeding the legal maxim Nemo judex in causa sua: I will not give the assurances you seek in your letter, nor will I read the book and catalogue points of disagreement. For the avoidance of any doubt, if you, or your publisher, publishes disparaging, libellous or defamatory statements of any kind about Bindmans or the lawyers who work here, or those have formally worked on your case, you can be assured that we will avail ourselves of our legal remedies, bring legal action and seek injunctions or damages as appropriate along with the costs of doing so.

Truly a gagging exercise, a bludgeon, constructive censorship. They will not tell me what they allege is untrue, dishonest or not in the public interest that would legitimise their criticism.

I dare not publish, the costs of a libel suit prohibitive and the prospect of success extremely doubtful in a court of lawyers when apparatchiks working for the Legal Ombudsman do not support me and the Solicitors Regulation Authority describes their response as “robust” and do not see it as authoritarian and going against the public interest that they explicitly espouse.

There is no equality here between me and Bindmans LLP. The only solvent is fair play.

When there is ample evidence that what I write about is in the public interest, can it be fair for Bindmans to refuse to identify those criticism they believe unwarranted and give me an opportunity to remove them. Isn’t it profoundly unfair to deny me that? Yet that is what they explicitly decline to do.

 The quest for truth and justice will always be elusive if fairness does not come into it.

I copy this to an old friend from University days, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, now retired, his eminence due to his fighting for human rights. I urge him to contact the partners in his former company and suggest that one of their number should review what I have written and either withdraw their threat or identify what they feel that they can legitimately take exception to.

Sadly, despite a long email dialogue, he declines to do so.


 Please share with your friends and colleagues


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *