Human Rights - for whom?

"Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime!"  That, if memory serves me well, was one of the meaningless mantras spouted by former-PM, Mr Tony Bliar (still not a typo!).

I would like to think that, as a disciple of Jesus, I would uphold the basic human rights of anyone - although it would appear that many folk consider their 'human rights' to be synonymous with 'whatever they want'!  However, the Human Rights legislation introduced by the Bliar government (did no-one at the time notice that Mrs Cherry Bliar - who, in my opinion, is just as obnoxiously greedy as her husband - was/is a QC who was an advocate of that legislation, and who has made a fortune in legal fees out of it?) is something with which this country could do without.

A failed asylum-seeker (i.e. his case for seeking asylum in this country was regarded as ineffective) mows down a 12-year-old girl, while he was banned from driving (and was uninsured), and flees the scene of his crime. A man who, it is reported, had run up a series of motoring offences and was convicted a second time for driving while banned three years after killing this young girl. A man who also had a string of criminal convictions including drugs possession, property damage, harassment and burglary.

He later turns himself in - the only positive aspect of the situation - and is jailed for four months!   And now, two senior immigration judges declare that he may remain in this country because, in the intervening period, he has fathered a couple of children, and to deport him would infringe his human rights!

I would like those two judges to visit the father of the young girl, for whose death this man was totally responsible - even 'though it was he who, apparently, had to make the excruciatingly difficult decision to turn off her life-support system - and explain to him the extent of his human rights, and those of his dead daughter.  Along with many others, I often wonder how these judges, whose lives are spent in a world that is obviously different from that of the vast majority of the British public, can bear to even look at themselves in the mirror each morning.  As Dickens' Mr Bumble would point out: " "If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass—a [sic] idiot." (Oliver Twist).

Perhaps Mr David Cameron would also like to visit the father!  In a pre-election pledge, the current P.M. wrote to him, promising reforms that would ensure “that rights are better balanced against responsibilities”. He said the Human Rights Act would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.  However, like the promise of a referendum on the EU, this appears to have become a casualty of actual government - or perhaps it was sacrificed to appease the pre-EU, lefty Liberal Democrats?!

But if the human rights of a 12-year-old are not considered worthy of consideration by the British legal system, then the human rights of those as yet unborn is considered as unimportant by European law.  A woman who had to travel from the Republic of Ireland - and she isn't even Irish; she is Lithuanian! - is considered to have had her human rights violated because she was unable to have an abortion in the Republic.  The European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, has criticised the Irish government for failing to implement legislation that would have permitted the abortion to take place because the mother's own life was at risk.  It may astonish some to know that, given a straightforward choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, I would be prepared to sanction the abortion.  However - and it is a big 'however' - such situations are, thankfully, rare in the extreme.  In fact, according to the newspaper reports to which I have access, this woman's life was not in danger!  She was concerned - even afraid - that her pregnancy would bring about a relapse of cancer; and that there might be a risk to the unborn child if she went to full term.  That, I would contend, is a long way from her life being at risk!  I would also want to ask her why, if she had such fears, she had not taken adequate contraceptive precautions to ensure that she didn't become pregnant?

It used to be said that, in civilisations such as the Roman Empire, or the Aztecs of South America, human life was cheap.  It would appear that we have not really moved very far forward - at least as far as the human rights of some are concrened!

Sex, and Alcohol.

One of this week's more sensational stories concerned the Romanian girl who, in Spain, gave birth to her first child - while the mother was only ten years of age!  One report stated that: "The birth has shocked Spaniards and created an international sensation. The girl's mother told reporters earlier this week that she was delighted to have a new granddaughter, and does not understand the fuss the birth has caused. She said the baby's father is a 13-year-old boy who is still in Romania.  She also said since they are Romanian Gypsies, or Roma, it is their custom to marry very young."

I suppose that it's all to do with sex.  Sadly, it's actually to do with the abuse of sex!  And there are even more serious consequences of the latter.  A report from the Centre for Disease Control (in the U.S.of A.) reported, this week, that 87% of all reportable disease is sexually transmitted!  We certainly know about the effects of HIV/AIDS.  According toWorldwide HIV & AIDS Statistics, more than 25 million people have died from AIDS since it became prominent in 1981.  A further 33.4 million were recorded as living with HIV/AIDS in 2008 (the latest year for which figures would appear to be available).  And, of course, there are all of the other sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and chlamydia - all of which can have more severe consequences that many (particularly young) people seem to realise!

Of course, there is an answer!  It's to be found in the Maker's Handbook - the Bible.  The seventh of the Ten Words (the 10 Commandments) instructs us not to commit adultery.  I mentioned on a post of many months ago, that if I were to have sexual intercourse with a woman other than my wife - or if I had indulged in that activity before we were married to one another - then I would, by proxy, be having a sexual encounter with evey other male with whom she had been involved; every other woman with whom each of them had been involved; and so on!  That could add up to a very large number of people!

Unfortunately, the perceived wisdom of mankind is simply what is referred to as "safe sex" rather than behavioural change.  Just ensure that you use a condom, and all will be well - with no apparent consideration of the less than 100% certainty of a condom's effectiveness; the straightforward desire for some - especially the males - to have 'unprotected' sex; and the simple fact that so much of the sexual activity that goes on is performed when both parties are under the influence of alcohol, and unlikely to be considering how 'safe' their sexual act might be.

And alcohol is a much abused substance.  In spite of the awareness of its contribution to crime, violence, liver disease, traffic accidents, etc., so many - even among many of my former pupils, if their Facebook comments are anything to go by! - feel that they can only have had "a good night" if they have managed to end up drunk (and incapable?).

Sex is good!  It must be - it was God Who invented it!  But He designed it to be between a man and a woman (not two men, or two women), within the bonds of a committed relationship, and to the exclusion of all others.  Even alcohol is not, per se, a bad thing.  Jesus was willing to provide the finest wine at a wedding feast (John 2:1-11); and Paul instructed Timothy to take some wine for medicinal purposes - with the underlying assumption that there was some to hand (I Tim.5:23).  But, in the Bible, drunkenness is always frowned upon.

Sex, and alcohol.  Both extremely potent.  Both requiring to be "Handled with Care", and with due regard to the Word of God. 

It's an interesting thought that most of the violence, crime, and disease that plagues so much of mankind, would be done away with in just one generation - if the Maker's instructions were followed!