In defence of the European Convention of Human Rights

It seems that Human Rights has got itself a bad name.  Personally, I blame protocol 11, which gave all individuals access to the European Court for Human Rights. Before 1998 people had to apply to the European Commission of Human Rights, who would then decide whether or not to launch a case in the Court on the individual's behalf -- this seems like a far more sensible system. Still, things changed, and now we have to endure the absurdity of a monkey's case being taken to the court. So if anything is to blame, it's protocol 11 -- now every idiot and their grudge can exploit a document intended to protect the democratic rights of the inhabitants of a continent decimated by fratricidal conflict.

This a document written to guarantee an individual's right to life, to liberty, to security, to a fair trial, to the freedom of thought, religion, expression, assembly and association. It also protects our right to a private life and to marry (though only same-sex marriages are protected), and defends us from unlawful punishment, discrimination, slavery and torture. This is a powerful and important document created in the shadows of the second World War. 

The European Court is now charged with protecting citizens of Europe from injustices at all levels. But surely there is also a responsibility on the part of the people it protects to treat the Human Rights charter with the respect that it deserves. Unfortunately, in recent years, this has not always been the case. It seems that every time the European Court is in the press it's because of something ludicrous. The consequences of which, are both to soften the perception of the seriousness of the Court's work, and to encourage other desperate or eccentric individuals to push its boundaries to new levels of obscurity.

The question I suppose this raises is a bit of a mind-boggler: should there also be an article or protocol in the ECHR to protect the convention itself from those who seek to exploit it? Except that this would mean restricting the rights of those who seek notoriety (or simply those who see the Court as a more flexible entity), which would surely be a human rights abuse in itself.

Either way, as much as the monkey debacle highlights the negative elements of such an accessible court, we cannot lose sight of the compassionate and well-reasoned purpose of this convention.

(Note: Before Human Right scholars lambast my diluted overview, for the sake of brevity and to avoid this turning into a thesis I am gloriously under-qualified to write, I thought it best to forego a discussion of what human rights actually are, what various interpretations there have been, and the philosophical influences (and criticisms) from scholars like Bentham, Marx, Kant, Habermas and Lévinas. Those interested in the scholarship behind it all and a more substantial articulation of these concepts should read, "Who Believes in Human Rights?: Reflections on the European Convention" by Marie-Bénédict Dembour. It's fascinating.)

Hillary's assassination gaffe

Is it just me or is Drudge taking Hillary's ill-advised 'assassination' comments a little too far? She said something that was interpreted in a way that she didn't mean (granted - not a great trait for a President to possess), she apologised, end of story. Does anyone seriously think that she secretly hopes Obama will be assassinated? The New York Daily News seems to think so:

SICK. Disgusting. And yet revealing. Hillary Clinton is staying in the race in the event some nut kills Barack Obama.

We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?

It's like Tanya Harding's kneecapping has come to politics. Only the senator from New York has more lethal fantasies than that nutty skater.

This is like the last surge on behalf of the press to end Hillary's campaign. Either that, or I'm completely wrong and she is indeed the supreme Queen of Machiavellian machinations.

For anyone who missed it, this is the video of Hillary's comments:

Despite what she may or may not have meant, she's killed what little chance she had of the getting the VP spot.

Veepstakes Galore

Two different rundowns of what is becoming the standard Republican VP list: the first, from RCP, looks at the people heading to the Sedona gathering (which, by the way, sounds like some kind of cult meeting); the second, from Pajamas, covers the whole field of likely candidates.  Anyone else getting worried by the increasing chatter about Huckabee and Graham?

Beatty asks for investigation into Ogonowski!

The Beatty campaign in Massachusetts sent me this a couple of hours ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, May 23, 2008   

JEFF BEATTY CAMPAIGN TO SECRETARY GALVIN: "PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM AND INVESTIGATE ALLEGED VOTER FRAUD BY JIM OGONOWSKI'S CAMPAIGN"

As Process Winds Down, Beatty Campaign Asks Commonwealth’s Top Election Official to Investigate Reports of Forgeries and Dead People on Ogonowski Nomination Papers   

Boston – The Jeff Beatty campaign has sent and hand delivered a letter to William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, asking him to investigate alleged voter fraud by the Senate campaign of Jim Ogonowski.  The letter points to an affidavit signed by a registered Republican voter in Chelmsford, MA stating that his signature was fraudulently placed on nomination papers for Mr. Ogonowski’s campaign.  This voter was also told that, in addition to his faked signature, deceased individuals also appeared on some of Mr. Ogonowski’s nomination papers.

“We are shocked and outraged at these allegations, and if true, they are extremely serious and represent an unforgivable attack on our democratic process,” said Joe Manzoli, director of the Jeff Beatty for Senate campaign. “When serious allegations such as these are brought to our attention it is our obligation to report them immediately to the appropriate authorities, and we have done so.”   

Nomination papers for Senate candidates were due at local town clerks’ offices on May 6th.  Campaigns have until Tuesday, June 3rd to pick paper up papers statewide and deliver them to the Secretary of State’s Office in Boston.

“Right now, this same Ogonowski team who is the focus of these allegations, is searching high and low for signatures that will put them over the top,” Manzoli continued.  “The Secretary of State must insure the integrity of the process and law enforcement must investigate these allegations rapidly and completely.  Fake signatures or dead voters cannot be used to help Mr. Ogonowski reach the magic number 10,000.”

The letter and affidavit referenced above were emailed to Secretary Galvin on Thursday evening and then hand delivered to his office today, Friday. These documents can be viewed at Jeff Beatty?s website using this link: http://www.jeffbeatty.com/PressReleases/Jeff-Beatty-Campaign-to-S-29.html.

Surely not, right? I'm kinda worried for Jim -- when Sideshow Bob tried this on The Simpsons, it did not end well.

The Metastatic Gaffe

Charlie Krauthammer at the Washington Post writes an excellent piece about how Obama managed to turn a mental lapse and absurd idea into an even worse doctrine, devoid of reason and ignorant of history:

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .

The metastatic gaffe - what a perfect (and terrifying) term for this whole mess. I can't think of a more dangerous phenomenon for the most powerful person in the world to possess.

Obama just can't help himself

From CQ Politics, via Don Surber, via Instapundit:

Obama just couldn't resist having a go at John McCain from the Senate floor.

Here's what Obama said:

I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

Here's McCain's response:

It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of.

(...)

Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.

McCain's spot on in the last paragraph -- he's really got to keep hammering away at Obama for being so quick to jump to an uninformed opinion.

Following the Money

There has been considerable speculation, as McCain has invited Crist, Romney and Jindal to Sedona for this holiday weekend.  Much of the buzz has been about VP selection, but I don't think that this is what this meeting is about.

Sure it creates excellent buzz for the McCain campaign as the MSM and the blogosphere speculate about Vice Presidential picks -and I am sure that at least one of these men are in contention- and maybe McCain wants to spend some time getting to know these three a little better.

However, I suspect that this is less about the VP-stakes and more about fundraising.  A month or so ago, I sat with a well-placed source within Florida politics and McCain's network and I asked him about Crist's chances regarding VP selection.  He was adamant that McCain would never select Crist as his VP (for a number of reasons I won't get into here), but that McCain desperately needed Crist's fundraising networks within Florida and as such he would honour the Governor by allowing speculation of VP consideration to circulate.

Then there's Jindal:  Despite some corners of the conservative blog-o-sphere promoting Jindal as McCain's solution to the Obama problem, I don't think McCain will give serious consideration to Jindal.  Despite his very impressive record of achievement, I think it would be better for both the GOP, Jindal and the people of Louisianna if Jindal was left in his state to build his record of accomplishments and apply conservative principals in a very demonstrative way to turn-around the Bayou State.  So why meet with Jindal?  Well, he is very innovative in the policy realm and he seems like a great guy to hang-out with and yes there's the media attention, but there's also this from an October IHT Report:

None has come close to matching Jindal's fundraising prowess. He has raised more than $11 million (€7.7 million). Democrat Foster Campbell, a fiery populist and public service commissioner from northwest Louisiana, is second in fundraising, with less than $2 million (€1.4 million).  

That's $11 million for a Louisiana gubernatorial run!

Then there is Romney:  He is likely the only one of the three that brings electoral college advantages to the ticket: Utah, Colorado, maybe tipping the scales in Michigan, New Mexico and Minnesota and making California just a little more competitive.  I would like to think that McCain would see the benefits of Mitt and overcome any lasting animosity, but I would be surprised if McCain chooses Mitt as his VP unless he feels that it is an absolute necessity.  

Currently, Mitt's number one attraction?  McCain's potential Fundraiser-in-Chief.

For these reasons, I think this weekend's Sedona festivities are more about filling the coffers than filling the 2-spot.

Tories take Crewe!

The Conservative party are victorious in Crewe! Amazingly, it is the party's first by-election gain since 1982. The BBC are reporting that Edward Timpson managed a 15,000 vote turnaround, overcoming a 7,000 vote Labour majority to win by 7,860.

What a punishing blow for Gordon Brown this is -- yet another barrow-full of salt into an already gaping wound. There's no mistaking it now, the political momentum in England is now firmly with the Conservatives -- Brown must be kicking himself for not having that early election!

McCain - Huckabee...

That's according to the final results of CQ Politics' "VP Madness" poll. Madness is just about right too. That would be the worst pick ever. EVER. I love how "executive experience" is always quoted when people talk about Huck -- he was a BAD Governor, surely experience is only a benefit when it is accompanied by success and ability. 

McCain has also struggled with big business, and having Huckleberry on the ticket is only going to compound matters -- I absolutely hated his supercilious attacks on Romney's private sector experience (the kind with success and ability), like working for a large company and making money had become some sort of a prehensile and immoral activity.

Waning McCain

Stephen Dinan at The Washington Times suggests that McCain's two-month honeymoon period may be over after Zogby's latest poll puts McCain 10-points behind Obama (37% - 47%), with Nader and Barr polling at 4% and 3% respectively.

I was also really surprised by another post on Dinan's blog, where he wrote that The Green Papers calculated that McCain received only 46% of the 20.2 million votes cast by Republicans this year, compared with Bush's 63% in 2000, and Bob Dole's 59% in 1996.

It seems like he's starting to lose momentum. I'd be thinking about naming that VP fast. I still think Romney would be the best bet. Right away, I'd get him campaigning in Michigan and Florida, which would probably make Hillary push even harder to fight it out all the way to the convention, and thus split the party even further.

Conservatism alive and well

Yuval Levin at Commentary Magazine takes issue with the recent hooplah about the conservative 'brand' being in the doldrums.  On the contrary, he argues, it's alive and well, thanks, partly, to the Democrats.

Loser Accidentally Self-Detonates . . .

. . . then locks himself in the loo.

From the UK's DailyMail:

A Muslim convert with a history of mental illness was being held tonight after two bombs were found in a family restaurant toilet following an explosion at lunchtime.  Police and bomb disposal teams were called in after Nicky Reilly, 22, apparently attempted to detonate a nail bomb.  

Mr Reilly, who suffered serious facial injuries in the blast, is thought to have carried out the attempted attack after being 'preyed upon and radicalised' by Islamic extremists. . . . Eyewitnesses said officers had to break down the cubicle door because the 22-year-old refused to come out.

I would like to know more about the bomber before I buy the narrative that the poor, mentally troubled lad isn't really to blame because he was 'preyed upon and radicalised' by Islamic extremists.  

Maybe that is the case, but for now my PC-BS senses are tingling.

You Have GOT To Be Kidding!

Via Drudge:

EUROPEAN COURT AGREES TO HEAR CHIMP'S PLEA FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

...An anonymous businessman has offered a substantial amount to cover his care, but under Austrian law only humans are entitled to have guardians....The country's supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling which rejected the activists' request to have a trustee appointed for Matthew.

So now 36-year-old Miss Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. ... Organisers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Matthew, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years.  But they argue that only personhood would ensure he is not sold to someone outside Austria, where he is protected by strict animal cruelty laws. . . . 'His life depends on this decision. This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?'

For crying out loud.  Set up the foundation or lobby the Austrian Government to change the law, but this ridiculous approach is demeaning to the actual HUMANS who are victims of real rights abuses. So the governments, who have what appears to be a policy of ignoring genocide and ethnic cleansing because they have neither the political will nor military resources to intervene, are going to waste time and resources on this garbage?

Let's get this straight...baby in the womb not a PERSON...a fricking monkey...potentially a PERSON!!!! Disgusting!

I knew that chimps were involved in writing European human rights law, but I never realised that they might be protected by it.

Obama's Instincts (and disregard for history)

Two good articles here.  One is by Karl Rove in The Wall Street Journal, the other by David Reinhard in The Oregonian. Both raise questions about the depth and thoughtfulness of Obama's foreign policy positions (as I talked about here), about which of Obama's multiple responses actually reflects his true thinking, and about how he keeps changing history to suit his argument.

From Rove's article:

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria.

(...)

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

From Reinhard's:

It began when Obama answered a YouTube/CNN debate question last July. "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" His reply: "I would."

(...)

Now, Obama says that preparations would, of course, be necessary, and his campaign talks about these nations' leaders having to meet benchmarks before sitting down with him. He likely has a nuanced exegesis of the difference between preconditions and preparation and benchmarks, but the latter two sure seem like preconditions, and this sure seems like a case of being for preconditions before you were against them.

Lately, the reasoning behind his foreign policy positions (or changes in position) are usually defended by a Kennedy/Khrushchev or Nixon/China comparison, which, on the surface seems logical, but in actual fact shows a gross lack of understanding of both history and the process of international diplomacy.

As Rove points out:

Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet – eagerly and without precondition – during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

____

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so naïve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

Similarly, of the Kennedy comparison, Reinhard writes:

In trying to talk his way out of his position, Obama's only made matters worse for himself. It began last week when he cited John F. Kennedy's sit-down with Nikita Khrushchev as a precedent: "When Kennedy met with Khrushchev," he said, "we were on the brink of nuclear war."

Uh, no, Senator, the brink of nuclear war came in the Cuban missile crisis more than a year later. In fact, Kennedy's weak performance in Vienna prompted the Soviet decision to put missiles in Cuba, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

Once again, I'm left wondering if this is naiveté or arrogance. Either way, I'm just amazed how little airtime this is getting, given the magnitude and global implications of what he's suggesting. It's almost like he needs to take a couple of weeks off, sit alone in a room with a map and stack of books, and think very, very carefully about what he wants to achieve, why he wants to achieve it, and how he plans on doing it. And then he can start running for President.

Re: Iraq: The Real Deal

Great FoxNews interview with Michael Yon, via Hotair:

Link: sevenload.com

Summary: We are winning.