Manufactured rights vs inalienable.

A few things have topped my thoughts in the last few days, and they are: Human rights (conscience, thought and belief), Omar Khadr (and the Geneva convention), and gay marriage, abortion, and feminism.

Seems like a pretty random collection of items, but when they are put under the initial topic of Human rights, they do all fit. Fair warning this could be a long post, which started for me at 3:38a.m. while I was trying to sleep.

Let's start at the beginning with Human Rights: Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."  Wikipedia.  In short as I understand them a Human right must apply to everyone equally. 

This moves us logically on to Gay marriage, and the “right” to it. First off it should be obvious that the “Institution” of marriage is not a right, it is a human contrivances, not something we were born to receive but something man has put in place therefore to be granted by those that sanction it. This is what can be considered a “Manufactured right”, because it applies to only a specific (and small) group of people rather than the whole. The same can be said for the “right” to Abortion, even more so because it violates the Human Right to LIFE that the aborted human has (Zygote, cluster of cells, we can try to justify it by renaming it all we want, but there is only one thing it will ever turn out to be, and that is a human being.)

Of course these two items bring us to a hot button issue in the current 2012 Alberta Provincial Election, Conscience Rights. Here we are talking about an ACTUAL Human Right, belonging to all people, which is trying to be superseded by the manufactured rights of gay marriage and abortion. Wilfred Laurier said “The rights of each man (er, and woman) end precisely at the point where they encroach upon the rights of others”. These are called individual rights, and to have the expectation that others will respect yours, you have the obligation to respect theirs. Rights must apply equally to all people, institutions man has created should, but can not be subjected to, if they violate another’s inalienable human rights.

Both of these manufactured rights are part of a social re-engineering experiment taking place in our society: we are unaware of the consequences they yet hold, but you can be sure that in time they will bear fruit, just as Feminism has.

Feminism has not stopped at women's right, but has gone beyond equal rights of men, to the need to reduce/remove men in the lives of women. Feminism has also left a void in society that was once filled by a compassionate caregiver who instilled in their children a sense of identity and belonging. This has been replaced by the emotionally (sometimes) strong, sexually free, absentee mother role model, which has been replaced by the entertainment industry, and peers, as the main emotional caregiver and nurturer. We are coming upon a generation of lost ad confused kids, and we can see that the social experiment of Feminism may be fine for those that had what today’s kids are missing out on, but not so fine for this generation (and potentially worse for the next.)

I understand that today we have many more single parents, many of which have no choice but to work to support their children (to my dismay), but what social re-engineering took place to cause the current state? (Look back at the 60's and 70's and you will find your answer.)

Finally I move on to Omar Kadhr; This is troubling on so many levels. I keep hearing him called a “child soldier”, yet according to the Geneva Convention rule 136 Children MUST NOT be recruited into armed forces or armed groups. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/612-136?OpenDocument Ok so then he wasn't a soldier at the time when he admitted to killing a US soldier, then what was he? If not a civilian based on his actions as a combatant by throwing a grenade, and not a soldier according to the Geneva Convention, there is only one other option, a Terrorist. This makes me question the insistence that the left parties in Canada have, that he should be immediately repatriated and incarcerated here because his “Charter Rights” were violated. Didn't this person violate someone else's HUMAN RIGHT to life?

Human rights, if not applied equally to all people, have no value to them. Manufactured rights are at best social re-engineering our society, and the courts should be forced, by responsible Government, out of this practice.