A Self-Limiting Rule of Law?

I had to think carefully on what I would write about today. Something global? Something local? Something Upbeat? Something Downbeat (I don’t have time to find appropriate synonyms for upbeat/downbeat)? Something funny? Something entertaining? Something caustic? Something soothing? Or what? There are examples of stories which could slot into any of those categories appearing every day and I don’t like to limit myself to any particular subject or narrative. Life would be easier if I did, but not so satisfying (for me).

It was my good fortune to hit on my chosen subject just before retiring to bed last night, and enabling me to make this start. It was a story from Spectator Australia (not on my normal reading list) brought to my attention by the list of newsy items of the day in The Automatic Earth (How does Ilargi continually find the time to scan all the diverse sources he does?), so an acknowledgement and a thank you is sent for that.

Here is a quote, to begin with, that ought to make you sit up in anticipation:

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.

The preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

Yes, there is such a declaration – the link is above – and maybe you should read it before acquiescing to any authoritarian demand for you to do something you consider wrong or unjust, wherever you are or in whatever country you live. The tenets of this declaration are meant to be adhered to by all nations which are member states of the United Nations. I hope you were already aware of that, but it bears restatement anyway.

Even so, one of the main things we continually hear about in times of stress – Like during a global pandemic (whether warranted or not) or the situation now predicted for our immediate future (social structure collapse; climate decimation; global conflict; adequate food and water supplies) – is the overreach by governments to impose restrictions on people’s activities which undoubtedly conflict with their basic human rights. Even and perhaps especially in the nations that boast of governing by systems of so-called ‘democracy’.

Take Australia for example…

Australia’s vaccine mandates: a violation of international law?

The following is a quote from the article linked above. I use it as it amplifies what I am trying to say here and because it is no less important information today than it was when first those ideas were expressed.

A self-limiting rule of law? Now there’s an interesting concept. It is something we don’t currently possess or, if we actually do, then it is clearly something that is being transgressed under false determinants and is in much need of strengthening. Who will do that?

Incidentally, when I speak of ‘rule of law’ I do not refer to the debased concept currently put forward by the chiefly Western, English speaking powers, who are at the same time the most obvious transgressors of the real rule of law – what we know as ‘International Law’ or that laid down in the Charter of the United Nations as a basis for interaction between its member states. Of which the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an integral part.

Perhaps it is time for these people to be reminded of that, and to be taken to task over their violations of its precepts. Those people are not endlessly empowered. They can be removed. But it is a function of the system that determines their temporary empowerment and allocates chosen individuals to those positions – regardless of the will of the people in most cases – that is also behind the push for a renegade system of their own enforced ‘rule of law’. A system of control that would ensure a reign of power for that system for ever.

If humanity wishes to live in a just and peaceful world, with inherent freedoms and rights counter-balanced by justifiable and reasonable responsibilities, then the Anglo-Western systemic version of rule of law must never be allowed to prevail. In fact, calling a spade a spade, it must either be destroyed or subjugated to the extent of never becoming realisable. My preference is for destruction, otherwise it will at some stage rise again just like (because it was not totally wiped out last century) the current and growing plague of Neo-nazism.

As always, there is much left unsaid. But hey! If you got this far, you did well.