The Right to Rights – Or Just Privileges

 Article -<Previous Segment> <START>

No discussion on Rights can be complete without the inclusion of ‘Government’. While it is said that politics is downstream from culture; this author is left wondering how such a small portion of society can have such an impact on society without some level of catering or pandering by those who can legally impose force on the rest. Many minority groups claim to be the recipients of oppression thus allowing them to claim victim status and yet these same minority groups receive preferential treatment from both society and the courts.

 

Returning to the US Declaration of Independence with its unalienable Rights or the US Second Amendment that provided the phrase ‘shall not be infringed’ these ideals present Rights as the preverbal immovable rock. Where as, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms added wiggle room in many of the clauses; for example under Legal Rights the second clause states the following: ‘Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’ For those not in the know, ‘amelioration’ is the act of making something better, an improvement. 

Of course there is the problem  of when something is up for grabs, who gets to hold the divining rod for what better is and for whom it is better for? In the writing of and the research for this article, this author has reached the conclusion that The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was misnamed, or poorly written if the name is to be held as both true and accurate. 

The Right to Rights – The Enemy Within

 Article -<Previous Segment> <START>

The enemy is within the gates, is a term that implies that an urgent and pressing matter requires immediate and heroic action to save the town. The most famous of this call to action came after the city of Troy was penetrated by a Trojan something or another, everyone knows the story. To answer the question of ‘did the gay lobby let the enemy within the gate’, this author feels that the first step is to define the enemy.

 

Throughout history, depending on the society and period in time, there has been disdain for homosexuality all the way up to legalized punishment; with the typical source being found in both the political and religious aspect of a culture. Some of these feelings and laws still exist today depending on were one looks on this planet. To those people who are homosexual today, they see these historical acts as suppression or even downright oppression. During those same historic times, those outside the homosexual persuasion saw the homosexuals as traitors to the society, the religion or both. The historical realities of the time must remain as part of the context of understanding.

 

For much of human history death came early and easy relative to the standards of today. Therefore it was essential that every sexual act was considered a duty to both the tribe and the religion for the purposes of sustainability and growth. This author has great confidence that humans figured out that inbreeding was not going to help the tribe.

 

It should also be noted that as a society grew more stable and prosperous, the tolerance for homosexuality grew when the tribe felt more secure in its own survivability. Also, the heterosexual portion of society in the utterance ‘the enemy is within the gate’ falls outside of this argument because the heterosexuals are not part of the in-group. To this day, heterosexuals are still not let in the gay lobby group as the highest level of accolade given to the heterosexuals is that of ‘ally’.

 

The enemy within is the Trans lobby activists who are being shored up Government activists both elected and un-elected along with others who have special interests. If the goal of the gay lobby was simple acceptance, then the gay lobby had better quickly push the Trans lobby activists out beyond the pale of association. Unless of course, the actions of the Trans lobby activists are palatable to the homosexual portion of the general population.

 

As previously mentioned in this article the feminist lobby fought for women’s only spaces, this achievement by women is now a hot topic for debate. The lesbians in the original LGB efforts are now being excluded from LGB+ events under the flag of sexism due to their refusal of engaging in sex with the ‘women’ with penises. Other places where biological women have lost ground are in women’s sport and the change room. By declaring themselves a woman, the trans-women are able to participate in sports, thus shattering standing records at a level that no biological women will surpass. In the change-room, women are being presented with naked figures that still have a penis. The efforts in sport and the comfort in the change room have been relegated to the back of the bus, and the women are not happy

 

In looking at the News, at the time of this writing with any serious scrutiny, one will notice the backlash towards the actions of the Trans lobby activists where their targets are children. Children are the subject for defense by society at large due to the on going indoctrination, grooming and mutilation being enacted by the more radical members of the Trans lobby. It must be noted that not all of these acts are being lauded by Trans supporters as the medical procedures being performed on minors basically guarantees a patient for life. Additionally, no safeguards were put in place legally or socially to address the potential for predators to take on the mantel of Trans to gain access to a fresh round of victims. The Rights of children and their parents has been relegated to the back of the bus.

 

NOTE: To further understand the situation, enter the following terms individually in your favourite search engine after the words ‘trans children’: luprin, double mastectomy, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty.

Article -<Next Segment>

The Right to Rights – Hop-Scotch

Article -<Previous Segment> <START>

With the opening of this Pandora’s Box, all that could be done was to wait and see what would come next. The principle of a Right is that it is the same for all peoples within a society; to put it more succinctly Rights can not be seen as a zero sum game where for someone to have, there must be someone to have not. This is why Rights must be both limited in number and simple in expression.

 

Along the way from the zero-sum to no-zero-sum, someone cut the brake line and so the demands made by women just kept on coming thus returning society to the zero-sum mandate. One of the earliest examples of this change was the invasion of what used to be called ‘men’s clubs’, it should be noted that there is no Right to belong to a club. The next marker on this road to ruin was the enforcement of a corporate rule for women only gyms, remember that there is no Right to belong to a club or even a gym. The zero sum game had been taken off the table.

 

The next demand made was a resolution for what was called the gender wage gap. The gender wage gap claimed that there should be ‘equal pay for equal work’. Of course the one problem that these advocates faced was that they had to show that women did equal work. The gender wage gap was born with a scream and it died with a whimper.

 

Of course no deed, good or bad, goes un-noticed. The actions and results of the feminists were noted and as it is said, mimicry is the highest form of flattery. The next lobby group to step up to the Temple of Rights demanding there own door and with their own unique shingle was the homosexual lobby commonly referred to as LGB. In the early days of this movement the stated goal was ‘gay rights’, once again side stepping or skirting around the principle of ‘equal Rights for all’ at least in name and diving towards the label of ‘we are special’.

 

Much like the feminists, the gay lobby missed out on holding society’s feet to the fire on equal rights for all, while that may have been the target, it was off the mark when it came to messaging. After years of protest marches court cases, same-sex marriage was made legal in Canada in 2005 and ten years later in the USA via the decision by SCOTUS in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

The opportunity to take the win and move on with life was not noticed or intentionally ignored, as the marching continued it was converted into a street party. Even the street party ended up being not enough as ‘PRIDE day’ morphed in ‘PRIDE week’ and even that was considered insufficient and as now there is ‘PRIDE month’ in some countries around the world. It was said that ‘There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’ by then-Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau. Well an answer to that bit of reasoning was found by taking the act of sex to the street.  Homosexual activities have broken beyond the barrier of acceptance and made it a celebratory event in the public eye.

 

Of course no deed, good or bad, goes un-noticed. Other groups started clinging on to the LGB pursuit for equality before the law with one difference, some of these new groups sought to up the math on the zero sum game, thus creating a figurative institution of social slavery. To make the point, the current full acronym for what once was LGB has now become LGBTQQIP2SAA. For those readers not in the know of the significance and importance of each letter, Google can be your friend. 

The Right to Rights - Introduction

Throughout much of history the idea of people’s ‘Rights’ were both obtained and handed out based on social position and climbing the social ladder was statistically impossible. There seems to be an ongoing misconception on what a ‘Right’ is; for this author what many people call human rights are not rights at all, as shown by the governmental reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

While good intentioned, the USA’s founding fathers in their declaration listed the unalienable rights, those being: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Approximately 250 years later the United Nations took another stab at this list by providing the following expansions: the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. In other jurisdictions the list has been expanded upon to include such items as: sex, gender, gender expression. There is an expression that seems to hold true on its face, which states ‘the more laws there are, the less justice there is.’

 

Returning to the USA’s Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the listed rights is the phrase ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’ The reader should in this situation, as in all things historic, apply the rules of the day to retain the context. The common understanding is that back in those days within the US, all proclamations and laws were written with the ‘white man’ in mind and that all others were excluded. Things were a little more complicated because distinctions were made on characteristics such as: land ownership status, taxable status, gender, race/religion, age, and yes of course skin colour. As a fledgling country the USA, left the mundane tasks of taxation and voting to the original thirteen colonies which ran through the full gambit of options on the topic of suffrage. The reader is encouraged to look online for a comprehensive history of American voting to see who MAY and who MAY-NOT  vote throughout the years.

 

The maxim of unintentional consequences states - there can be outcomes of purposeful actions that are not intended or foreseen. The early suffragettes made a semantic error, though that is often the case in advertising campaigns and propaganda, in that the feminists demanded ‘woman’s Rights’ when what was actually desired was equal access to ‘men’s Rights’. The previous sentence may be categorized by some as a distinction without a difference, yet to do so is to ignore history and assign a meaning to the word ‘men’ that was never intended by those who took pen to paper in 1776.

 

Back to the idea of consequence, by deviating away from the ‘all men are created equal’ expression and propagating the ‘us versus them’ narrative, the feminists opened the door for social segregation based on immutable characteristics real or otherwise. It will not be denied here that the dream of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America was not realized overnight; in fact it took a civil war and the death of tens of thousands to take the first significant step for the country. The idea of ‘your right to swing your arm stops at the tip of my nose’ was made manifest, though even then it took a generation or five to effectively make that change within American society.

<Next Entry>