Men’s Rights Are Human Rights

 

Other than the first word “Men’s” in any civilised society or culture, it would be rare indeed to find anyone who would have an issue with the statement  – Rights Are Human Rights – and here in the West, we rather arrogantly assume ourselves to BE civilised societies and cultures, we pride ourselves on our technological advancement, on our dedication to Human Rights, in fact we rather pompously issue statements about the Human Rights abuses happening in other less “advanced” societies and cultures, and, do you know what?

We are full of shit – totally and utterly FULL. OF. SHIT.

Because as soon as you put the word “Men’s” in front of the statement, so it reads MEN’S Rights Are Human Rights – all bloody hell breaks out – screams and shrieks of protest, insults, a barrage of complaints and whines, endless and interminable toxic little screeds written or posted, that decries, denies, objects, or opposes the notion that MEN should have, are entitled to, or vested with HUMAN RIGHTS.

All because of one word – MEN.

No-one raises an eyebrow at the word Rights, or Human, and definitely not at those words being used in combination, so the only logical conclusion is that Human Rights is a good thing, so what is the issue, what causes the mother of all shitstorms of protest when MHRA’s precede those words with the word MEN’S?

The answer is simple – Men in general are considered to be, believed to be, and are promulgated by one sect of society as – less than human. That sect? Feminism.

I’ve always maintained that feminists, by and large are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, as well as other less……kind things.  But another thing that distinguishes feminists and those policy and law makers who listen to the shit feminists peddle is this – they are also dumb as a bag of hammers.

Human Rights according to them are the prerogative of special human beings, and any human being who fails to reach the parameters and standards set by feminists is therefore NOT entitled to the SAME level of Rights Protection as these other Special human beings.

They shriek about violence, they wail and work themselves up into a hysterical lather about rape culture, they weep and sob about oppression and disadvantage, and male privilege. This is all in an ongoing effort to maintain a system, a cultural, societal and legal framework that denies Human Rights to Men.

Are some men violent? Yep. Do some men rape women? Yep. Are some men complete and utter arseholes? Yep. In relation to Human rights though, what would be my answer to that?

So what? It is –  IRRELEVANT.

What human beings do, what kind of human being a person is, whether or not a particular human being is a complete nutcase IS IRRELEVANT – THAT Human Being is still a Human Being. Granted, maybe an arsehole, or total bitch, but none the less, a Human Being. Ergo. Vested with Human Rights.

The ONLY qualification for being vested with Human Rights is to BE a Human Being – no-one gets to set the parameters of which kinds of human beings are acceptable, no-one gets to lay out any other qualifications for being a human being, other than the ability to pass a DNA test that comes back – Homo Sapien.

End. Of. Story.

Which brings us to Laws – at its simplest – laws are the framework within which the parameters of allowable human behaviour are to be conducted, for ALL the human beings in a particular territory or jurisdiction. Contained within the framework of laws are provisions for sanctions, for punishments if a particular human being violates one of the acceptable and allowable human behaviours. Ok – laws cover much more than this – but for the purposes of this essay, let’s just stick to the basics?

If one thinks of Human Rights instruments as Primary Legislation – mostly contained within International Charters and in Constitutions, and Laws and Legislation as Secondary Legislation, then one should, if one is not a feminist, be able to discern that Human Rights take precedence, and Legislation is enacted that should embody provisions that PROTECT those Primary Human Rights.

This, unfortunately is where feminism and feminists have infected, have corrupted our cultures and societies, and have literally turned this admittedly simple concept on its head.

Laws first – Human Rights second – because feminism and feminists have convinced the powers that be, in most Western States, that up is down, right is left, good is bad.

The reason for this about face, this switch, is as simple as it is vile – if we take the emphasis OFF the Humanity of all but the most Special humans – in fact, if one emphasises the innate humanness of ONLY one type of human being and denigrate, dismiss and deride the innate humanity of those have been deemed less than human one can chip away at basic fundamental Human Rights from below, so to speak – can undermine the protections and provisions of Human Rights Primary Legislation to such an extent that they collapse at worst, and become hollow, become mere caricatures. Needless to say feminists have “tinkered” with and continue to demand more “tinkering with” Primary Human Rights Instruments.

THAT is what feminism and feminists have done – by their actions, by their toxic and vile ideology they have made a mockery of Human Rights, and rather than giving any credence, any validity to any right, of those in the West to lay claim to being “advanced” or civilised” or in a position to look down their noses at less “advanced” or civilised” cultures and societies – it is here in the West, where the true barbarians reside, where the real “backward” societies are.

WE, are the champion Human Rights violators and abusers on this planet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

NB. Yes, I know, it is and has become a flawed Instrument, and yes I also know that the UN is infested with feminists, but for now, it is sadly almost all we’ve got. I posted the Preamble to illustrate how far FROM those noble aspirations we not just are, but are heading away from.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014.

Advertisements

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. John mws
    Jan 24, 2014 @ 16:50:20

    One of the worse examples of the feminists affecting human rights is in the World Health Organisation (WHO). Three flawed and incomplete studies are being used to justify millions of men in Africa being circumcised allegedly to help prevent HIV infection.

    If you look at the trials and the scientific reviews of the trials then the evidence is just not there. The WHO website quote a 60% reduction in HIV infection but fail to mention that the circumcised men had family planning advice including free condoms and the actual figures were, that about on average, across the three trials, 1% fewer men got infected then the control group, where only 1.5% got infected. That is less then experiemental error in most trials. So it did not show any benefit what’s so ever. 98.5% of the men did not get infected with their penis intact. The expection can be that it will encourage less condom use and actually increase HIV infections.

    One other thing that stands out is the the same science that is supposed to apply to the foreskin, can be applied precisely equally to the clitorial hood. So if they are really serious about this then they should be promoting female circumcision as well. We know that is not going to happen. The misandry is off the scale. The collected foreskin is then used to help make face cream for women.

    Reply

  2. Brian Boru
    Jan 25, 2014 @ 13:59:30

    Another great article Anja, I don’t know where you get the energy from.

    At any rate, this touches on a subject about which I feel very strongly, and that is the fundamental legal validity of the Gender Laws. I say they are subversive of the basic laws of our society and are therefore invalid and without ultimate legitimacy. Furthermore, I believe this subversion is intentional and that those responsible for this subversion must be fully held to account for the consequences of their actions, however long that takes. The Gender Laws are quite clearly crimes against human rights, specifically the human rights of males – although some women may also suffer from them, as collateral damage – and I am well aware of the implications of what I am saying.

    A free society is a contract between equals, at a very fundamental level: I agree to respect your rights as a human being as long as you agree to respect mine, in all aspects, no exceptions. The moment you cross the line and dilute my rights as opposed to yours in any way, that contract is broken, it is null and void, and I am not morally bound by any so-called laws you may enact or cause to be enacted on foot of those diluted rights. Any attempt to enforce such laws is by definition oppression, and anyone who participates in that oppression must be held answerable for the consequences of their participation. This principle has been well established in the context of other regimes, and there is no reason why our own societies should be exempt from it, just because we are called democracies.

    The argument may be advanced that because we vote for our governments, we are responsible for any laws enacted by said governments, but this is spurious, for at least two reasons.

    The first reason is that if it is claimed that a majority of voters support these oppressive laws, then they are valid and must be obeyed. This is the doctrine of majoritarianism, which denies the safeguards afforded by natural justice and basic laws and principles against oppression of any group in society by those who happen to form a majority at any given time. No majority has any such right.

    It is also a fetishism to imagine that any law must be obeyed, irrespective of its justice or otherwise. Quite recently the UK government posthumously pardoned Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, for his conviction of the “crime” of homosexuality, as a result of which he committed suicide. Yet that law itself was an outrage against the basic rights of men (and only men, because Queen Victoria took the highly unusual step of intervening in the bill outlawing homosexuality to exempt women from its provisions, ostensibly because she didn’t accept there was such a thing as lesbianism, which I’m not buying because if that really was the case, then no woman could ever be prosecuted for it regardless). Nobody should ever have been criminalized for that, and all such laws are and were clearly an oppression of the minority by the majority, and as far as I’m concerned fundamentally illegal (my use of the term is very considered BTW).

    The second reason is that the means by which these laws are enacted are dishonest, underhand, and designed to bypass both the understanding of the average person, who is unaware of the implications of their provisions, and the principles of nautral justice and basic laws. The justifications for these pseudo-laws are frequently drawn from unproven assertions, scientifically invalid “studies” and blatant bigotry and hostility towards men and boys. Let’s be honest about it and call these justifications by what they really are, lies, and laws based on lies are not laws, they are themselves lies, and all actions flowing from such laws should be liable for restitution.

    I believe we, the free citizens of this world, need to formally repudiate the Feminarchy, which I define as the totality of ideological activists, propagandists, academics, politicians, and all those socially, politically and economically influential persons who belong to or otherwise support the sect of feminism and who promote and pursue its dogmas and beliefs with the aim of enforcing our ultimate compliance with their dystopian demands.

    I have no problem with anyone who wants to live a feminist lifestyle, or live by feminist principles, in their own time and at their own expense, just as I have no problem likewise with the followers of Islam, Christianity, or any other belief system, provided that they extend the same courtesy to me. It is when they demand the right to force me to live according to those beliefs that I will rebel, as must we all if we are to remain free.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: