“The father of the modern human rights system is John Humphrey.” –Nelson Mandela
New Brunswick’s own John Humphrey was the author of the first draft of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mandela’s statement should not mislead us to conclude that the idea of human rights is a recent invention. It’s not. There is an international system.
The UN declaration stems from its historical circumstances, a world war in which Hitler’s genocidal scientism was its most prominent new feature. The anti-human national ideology created in the language of ‘science’ was a scalpel crafted against genetic identity groups.
The declaration arose because the long-established ‘law of the nations’—far from Christianity—was insufficient to prevent the crimes of Nazi Germany. Genetics had outgrown morality and denied obligations to humanity within its limits. The international community will do what nations will not.
In my view this declaration was insufficient. This humanism was still in the throes of scientism, seeking to reclaim the theological sense of the sanctity of life, yet without appealing to the motive of obedience to God. It recovers, of course, the Nuremberg Code, an important method of informed consent for the scientific community, yet without establishing its secure base in God-given human nature.
It is important to note that the human rights commitment in Canada did not originate in 1948. Canada’s commitment to universal human rights goes back to its Confederation documents. As Canadian historian John Robson As Magna Carta (1215) reminds us, the right to due process, to the legal presumption of innocence, unless there is evidence of guilt, to accountable government, rights to property, freedom of speech and free association, are all clear. It is also contained in the official motto of Canada, a marie usque ad mare, a passage from Biblical Psalm 72:8, refers to the Christian beliefs of the Fathers of the Confederacy.
But since 1968, the political left has seized on human rights as its special project. This is evidenced in Europe and North America, a form of human civil religion, and it defies the historical (especially Christian) understanding of ‘freedom under the law’. Considering its origins in the sexual revolution, it rewrites history to discredit its historical ancestors as oppressors. The evidence against it continues to grow.
Most prominent is the way of linking human rights in the context of ‘group rights’ rather than freedom arising from moral action. Although it trumpetes its defense of minority groups, it exempts the legitimacy of the last minority, namely the individual. see my discussion Here.
And instead of freedom under the law, the political left cites what Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke called a ‘state of nature’, the autonomy of human choice without obligation. This idea of human nature is no longer rooted in marriage or the traditional family, and is devoid of any grammar of moral and political action. It serves a system that is internationalist. It is no longer bound by the law of nations, it acts as if nations were an impediment to ‘progress’.
Driven by technology, our elites are now ruled by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who has been dubbed after nationalism. It aims to appoint bureaucrats to check nationalism with a crippling global regulatory framework, such as the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations Agenda 2030.
After nationalism, it is cut from both ends. It strengthens individual and social rights (through the spread of ‘identity’), while it undermines the ‘national form’. It is most conspicuous in planned low birth rates and mass immigration. It applies cultural Marxism to the ‘long, slow pace of the Left’. As globalization increases within Canada’s political and civic bodies (including its educational, scientific and medical establishment), it also undermines the institutions that made freedom and self-government possible.
crossing the rubicon
The extreme response to COVID-19 has only brought all this to the public’s attention. The government’s rejection of charter rights and freedoms through lockdowns and the recent scrapping of the Nuremberg Code in the application of vaccine mandates and passports has resulted from orders from heads of government. But most shockingly, it is eagerly followed by the ideologically motivated public sector and large corporations, whose ties are more global than local.
This is far more evident than in the recent televised federal election debates, in which no party leader opposed the idea of compulsory vaccinations or vaccine passports. While they would explicitly deny ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’ and divide Canadians into people with universal human rights, and without them, no political leader has said it was non-Canadian.
This is because these leaders, especially Justin Trudeau, portray those who ‘oppose’ vaccines as ‘far-right’. It’s gaslighting, for the groups most concerned are black and indigenous communities, and the typical vaccine-hesitant person in Canada, as McLean’s Magazine noted, is a 42-year-old Ontario woman who votes for Liberal.
Protesting groups do this in the name of freedom. Freedom does not fit into the international system.
The threat is real and present. With no free press in Canada and rights and liberties being illegally suspended, the ramifications of health policy governing by absurd computer R0 scores have led the majority to favor ghettos on the basis of ‘health’. This is likely to be a Rubicon moment in which citizens legitimize in their minds the privacy and autonomy of all their citizens, their assurances of freedom of movement and association, equality, and the ability of government against discrimination, especially when the need for everyday access The matter comes. goods and services.
As Naomi Wolf has rightly noted, even the QR codes it uses are a slippery slope to launch a social credit system like that of Communist China. God help
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times