The following letter was sent to both the Jamaica Gleaner and the Jamaica Observer for consideration re: publication.
It was published by the Observer but not by the Gleaner
Be vigilant about gay rights
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I write on the trials at Nuremberg and gay rights.
After World War II the victorious Allies sought to bring the Nazi leadership to justice for their deeds such as the atrocities in the concentration camps. During the trial one of the Nazis’ defence was that their conduct was legal under German law.
The Nazi leaders were nevertheless found guilty as the court appealed to a higher law which we all intuitively know, and which made the Nazis criminally liable though they had not broken their law. Atrocities remain atrocities, even when made legal by the state.
The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) arose as a consequence of the atrocities of the war. It sought to define a minimum standard of human interaction.
The document, logically, was created within a particular moral framework and must be interpreted within that framework.
Without this it is of no value. The question to be answered is, which moral framework?
Although the UDHR is non-binding, treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which arise from it are binding on nation states.
This is where gay rights activists and feminists have seized an opportunity. Like the Nazis before them these groups are using the law to advance unsatisfactory behaviours; this time the UDHR itself.
Feminists and gay rights activists seek to interpret the UDHR within a moral framework in which autonomy is the highest virtue. United Nations treaties are not crafted within this framework as there would be no consensus for the treaties to go forward.
Nonetheless, feminists and gay rights activists aggressively seek to interpret United Nations treaties in a manner which reflects their position and claim that nations are in violation of their (feminists and LGBTIII) “rights”, according to United Nations treaties .
This is the “rights by stealth” approach.
Using this strategy, feminists claim “rights” to abortion throughout pregnancy and the LGBT community claim “privacy rights” to the most bizarre and unhealthy sexual practices which are responsible for the alarming rates of HIV and STIs among men who have sex with men (MSM).
Other groups are already claiming “sexual rights for children regardless of age” in order to facilitate sexual access to children.
The “rights” strategy is brilliant as the term engenders sympathy, and “rights” create a legal capacity to punish people who show dissent. It is said that the “the price of freedom is vigilance”.
Jamaicans must be vigilant, or Jamaica 100 will be radically different from what many of us would wish.
“What gawn bad a mawning cyaan come good a evening.”
Dr W West