Internation law should protect our culture as a human right.

crac · 04-09-2007, 10:58 AM

On a point of principle.
Is there a right to enjoy your your culture in your country of origin? Ie, use your benefits your cultural assets and talents and resources and to be free to do so and not be unduly constrained.
The right to have the cultural dominance of your own culture in every area of normal life of your own country as you would expect it to be.

These rights should be upheld by international law and that must mean a restriction on the right of other cultures to significantly alter that cultural experience.

It should mean that all countries are able to preserve the essential characteristics of their precious cultural history.

I am wondering if the Labour party can be charged in an international court with creating a racist regime against the fundamental rights of the Indigenous culture.I would like to bring this crime before an international court since there is clear legal evidence of it.

Even if it's not supported by current international law it certainly should be since it seems to be in keeping with the whole basis of racism and the idea that race and culture has rights. Clearly English culture should have the same protections under law as others do and a right to be dominant in it's place of origin and protected and supported.

I would seriously like to put the labour party under a charge of racist and criminal damage to our culture upheld in an international court of human rights.

Little Englander (sour) · 04-09-2007, 11:17 AM

Unfortunately there is nothing, in law, to stop a national government denying human rights to it's own citizens, however, they cannot deny the human rights to immigrants, especially from Europe. In fact I don't think you can use the term immigrant when applied to someone, settled here, who comes from another EU country.

harryaldridge · 04-09-2007, 11:22 AM

1. I don;t think such a law exists
2. It would be extremely difficult to define 'culture'.
3. Good luck!

Aardvark · 04-09-2007, 11:39 AM

Two hopes mate, and one's Bob.

There is no such international law and no court in which to uphold it. Since there is no crime there can be no evidence of such a crime.

The reason that there is no such law is pretty obvious. The natives of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and much of Africa and Polynesia would be demanding billions of dollars in compensation for destruction of their cultures.

The other problem with such a law is that whilst our culture has evolved into a democracy over centuries we have foregone a lot of things that made our culture distinct - hanging, drawing and quartering, bear baiting, the stocks, pillories and child prostitution.

There is no agreed definition of what constitutes English culture and indeed there are still remnants of distinct regional cultures which could demand their own right to protection. I suspect crac that you don't do all the cultural things that I might do - I morris dance (quite common hereabouts, but technically a group of regional cultures based on several different styles), I eat black pudding and whelks and used to eat tripe, chawl, brawn, chitterlings and many other delicacies that I associate with being English. I also like a curry and a kebab once in a while - would they be banned or controlled? I drink pints and think in miles when driving. I drive on the left. Some things that are part of our culture are recent - Imperial measures replaced a lot of regional measures in the nineteenth century and it is now an offence to sell kippers by the cran or potaotes by the barrel for instance. We still had reputed pint glasses (Wellingtons) when I was a barman, but they seem to have disappeared.

I don't think that any international court would allow you locus standi to bring a fictional case against a body that represents you. The problem with bringing a case against the government, as in judicial review cases, is that the only person who suffers is the long suffering taxpayer who forks out the costs of both sides since, unless there is a clear case of misfeasance in public office (relies on the state of mind of the misfeasor) then the individuals don't pick up the cost.

If you brought a case you would not get legal aid unless you could get counsel to produce an opinion that stated that you had a very realistic prospect of winning. I doubt that you could find one anywhere so you would have to take on the government using your own resources. If you lost you would pay all costs of both sides which I might suspect would bankrupt you.

To win you would need a change in international law. That would require a lot of nation states - the overwhelming majority - to agree by treaty that your law was a goer (see above reasons as to why that won't happen).

In any event, I don't think the regime is racist per se. I think the English appear to be disadvantaged, but that's not the same. You would need strong evidence since it is concomitant on being English that you support a right to trial by jury (doesn't exist in international courts that focus on points of law) and that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These elements are an essential part of the legal system that we have evolved and shared with our former colonies.

Sorry mate, but your idea is a complete non-starter.

crac · 04-09-2007, 12:29 PM

It's about the principle, about protecting the wellbeing of the majority cultural rights holders and not those other issues, which could be described as procedural.

It doesn't matter that it's not a specific law. It's about establishing the principle, which is already firmly entrenched in our society anyway that race and culture has rights.

The issue of other rights holders , sure ,it's already agreed that they have rights in principle.
But they are not the dominant culture so ....you have to realistic about how the principle is applied.

Culture it's a fairly simple matter to define it in general terms and for that to include the fact that it varies from place to place, it includes the fact that it does change over time and absorbe new ideas etc. Culture is the way people live and is a combination of people and their interaction with their ecology over time The ways they have develped to exploit the resources of their environment and how they have celebrated and translated the meanings they find in their experience of life in to song dance art music design and so on.

Aardvark · 04-09-2007, 03:25 PM

There is no principle protecting culture since, despite what you say, it is impossible to give a clear definition of what is meant by culture. I doubt that there is any legal precedent, res decidendi or obiter dicta, that even alludes to protection of culture.

There are laws protecting races from discrimination and providing for equality of the sexes, but there is no law protecting all religious groups since one man's religious doctrine is another man's blasphemy.

It is absurd to talk of international laws on majority cultures since that would, for instance, allow the Shia to destroy, as they already are doing illegally, the Sunni, Yezdi, Christian and Jewish holy sites in Iraq as the Shia are the dominant culture.

Remember that most of the borders in the world have never taken notice of culture, race or religion. Many countries have no genuine dominant culture and people don't always peaceably co-exist. The post-WWI division of Europe created a Balkans that took no account of anybody's culture, religion, race or language and most countries have minorities that would rather the lines had been drawn elsewhere. Some races are always a minority and will never be anything else - Kurds in several countries, Armenians in several countries outside Armenia, Liv, Roma, Sinti,Vlach, Sorbs, Ruthenians etc etc. How will they be allowed to prosper in their home territories if they have to submit to majority cultures (as has often happened to them)?

Post-WWII was just as bad. In the case of Prussia the majority culture was destroyed and an alien culture was transplanted into historic Prussian territory.

Even in our country we have had borders redrawn over the centuries and Monmouthshire has been returned to Wales whilst much of the Marches hasn't. Welsh was spoken in much of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Cheshire less than 200 years ago and the ethnic Welsh are still present. Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmoreland are originally Scottish possessions, but then Skye, Orkney and Shetland are Norwegian. Some of the culture in those areas is clearly not the same as the countries they now occupy.

Cultures come and go and the biggest threat to English culture is Coca Cola not Islam. Did you know that our Santa used to be pictured in greens and browns during the Victorian era and the bright red suit you now think is Santa's costume was designed as part of a Coca Cola advertisement?

When you stop buying Easter eggs in January, dressing Santa in Coca Cola's colours and spending a small fortune on presents, celebrating 'trick or treat' (American import -didn't happen when I was a lad, we did penny for the Guy), buying Mother's Day cards (instead of Mothering Sunday cards) and dining on Big Macs and fries (chips for God's sake) you can talk of protecting your culture. When was the last time you went to a Harvest Home or attended a church 'ale' or even attended an Anglican Church (other than hatches, matches and despatches) - HMTQ is head of the church, you'd have thought it would have been seen as an essential part of our culture since it was created by a syphilitic Welsh madman who wanted to divorce his dago wife so he could marry his bit on the side (beheaded for mothering Elizabeth I and not producing sons as well as shagging about). I'll bet you don't even drink real ale, but drink that sterile canned fizz or English lager (Carling - hah!).

Aardvark · 04-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Drinking Stella in pints is not English!

John Carter · 04-09-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Cultures come and go and the biggest threat to English culture is Coca Cola not Islam.

Wrong. Coca Cola is a product of English culture - albeit an English culture which is a couple of thousand miles away and evolved slightly differently... ...while islam is completely alien.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Did you know that our Santa used to be pictured in greens and browns during the Victorian era and the bright red suit you now think is Santa's costume was designed as part of a Coca Cola advertisement?

Urban legend, nothing more.

Here's a pic of Saint Nic - have a look at what colour he's wearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saintnicholas.jpg

Besoeker · 04-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crac

Culture it's a fairly simple matter to define it in general terms.

I don't agree.
Try to define "English" culture in general terms.

Phil Sheldon · 04-09-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Urban legend, nothing more.

Here's a pic of Saint Nic - have a look at what colour he's wearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saintnicholas.jpg

I always understood Santa's red costume originated as part of a Coca-Cola ad.

Finally, from 1931 to 1964, Haddon Sundblom created a new Santa each Christmas for Coca-Cola advertisements that appeared world-wide on the back covers of Post and National Geographic magazines. This is the Santa we know and love today with a red suit trimmed with white fur, leather boots and belt, long white beard and a pack of toys slung onto his back.

http://cypriot.org.uk/Ilgi/Saint-Nicholas.htm

04-09-2007, 10:58 AM	#1 (permalink)
crac Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 126	Internation law should protect our culture as a human right. On a point of principle. Is there a right to enjoy your your culture in your country of origin? Ie, use your benefits your cultural assets and talents and resources and to be free to do so and not be unduly constrained. The right to have the cultural dominance of your own culture in every area of normal life of your own country as you would expect it to be. These rights should be upheld by international law and that must mean a restriction on the right of other cultures to significantly alter that cultural experience. It should mean that all countries are able to preserve the essential characteristics of their precious cultural history. I am wondering if the Labour party can be charged in an international court with creating a racist regime against the fundamental rights of the Indigenous culture.I would like to bring this crime before an international court since there is clear legal evidence of it. Even if it's not supported by current international law it certainly should be since it seems to be in keeping with the whole basis of racism and the idea that race and culture has rights. Clearly English culture should have the same protections under law as others do and a right to be dominant in it's place of origin and protected and supported. I would seriously like to put the labour party under a charge of racist and criminal damage to our culture upheld in an international court of human rights.

04-09-2007, 11:22 AM	#3 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,912	1. I don;t think such a law exists 2. It would be extremely difficult to define 'culture'. 3. Good luck! __________________ http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

04-09-2007, 11:39 AM	#4 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	Two hopes mate, and one's Bob. There is no such international law and no court in which to uphold it. Since there is no crime there can be no evidence of such a crime. The reason that there is no such law is pretty obvious. The natives of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and much of Africa and Polynesia would be demanding billions of dollars in compensation for destruction of their cultures. The other problem with such a law is that whilst our culture has evolved into a democracy over centuries we have foregone a lot of things that made our culture distinct - hanging, drawing and quartering, bear baiting, the stocks, pillories and child prostitution. There is no agreed definition of what constitutes English culture and indeed there are still remnants of distinct regional cultures which could demand their own right to protection. I suspect crac that you don't do all the cultural things that I might do - I morris dance (quite common hereabouts, but technically a group of regional cultures based on several different styles), I eat black pudding and whelks and used to eat tripe, chawl, brawn, chitterlings and many other delicacies that I associate with being English. I also like a curry and a kebab once in a while - would they be banned or controlled? I drink pints and think in miles when driving. I drive on the left. Some things that are part of our culture are recent - Imperial measures replaced a lot of regional measures in the nineteenth century and it is now an offence to sell kippers by the cran or potaotes by the barrel for instance. We still had reputed pint glasses (Wellingtons) when I was a barman, but they seem to have disappeared. I don't think that any international court would allow you locus standi to bring a fictional case against a body that represents you. The problem with bringing a case against the government, as in judicial review cases, is that the only person who suffers is the long suffering taxpayer who forks out the costs of both sides since, unless there is a clear case of misfeasance in public office (relies on the state of mind of the misfeasor) then the individuals don't pick up the cost. If you brought a case you would not get legal aid unless you could get counsel to produce an opinion that stated that you had a very realistic prospect of winning. I doubt that you could find one anywhere so you would have to take on the government using your own resources. If you lost you would pay all costs of both sides which I might suspect would bankrupt you. To win you would need a change in international law. That would require a lot of nation states - the overwhelming majority - to agree by treaty that your law was a goer (see above reasons as to why that won't happen). In any event, I don't think the regime is racist per se. I think the English appear to be disadvantaged, but that's not the same. You would need strong evidence since it is concomitant on being English that you support a right to trial by jury (doesn't exist in international courts that focus on points of law) and that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. These elements are an essential part of the legal system that we have evolved and shared with our former colonies. Sorry mate, but your idea is a complete non-starter. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 Last edited by Aardvark; 04-09-2007 at 11:48 AM.

04-09-2007, 03:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	There is no principle protecting culture since, despite what you say, it is impossible to give a clear definition of what is meant by culture. I doubt that there is any legal precedent, res decidendi or obiter dicta, that even alludes to protection of culture. There are laws protecting races from discrimination and providing for equality of the sexes, but there is no law protecting all religious groups since one man's religious doctrine is another man's blasphemy. It is absurd to talk of international laws on majority cultures since that would, for instance, allow the Shia to destroy, as they already are doing illegally, the Sunni, Yezdi, Christian and Jewish holy sites in Iraq as the Shia are the dominant culture. Remember that most of the borders in the world have never taken notice of culture, race or religion. Many countries have no genuine dominant culture and people don't always peaceably co-exist. The post-WWI division of Europe created a Balkans that took no account of anybody's culture, religion, race or language and most countries have minorities that would rather the lines had been drawn elsewhere. Some races are always a minority and will never be anything else - Kurds in several countries, Armenians in several countries outside Armenia, Liv, Roma, Sinti,Vlach, Sorbs, Ruthenians etc etc. How will they be allowed to prosper in their home territories if they have to submit to majority cultures (as has often happened to them)? Post-WWII was just as bad. In the case of Prussia the majority culture was destroyed and an alien culture was transplanted into historic Prussian territory. Even in our country we have had borders redrawn over the centuries and Monmouthshire has been returned to Wales whilst much of the Marches hasn't. Welsh was spoken in much of Shropshire, Herefordshire and Cheshire less than 200 years ago and the ethnic Welsh are still present. Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmoreland are originally Scottish possessions, but then Skye, Orkney and Shetland are Norwegian. Some of the culture in those areas is clearly not the same as the countries they now occupy. Cultures come and go and the biggest threat to English culture is Coca Cola not Islam. Did you know that our Santa used to be pictured in greens and browns during the Victorian era and the bright red suit you now think is Santa's costume was designed as part of a Coca Cola advertisement? When you stop buying Easter eggs in January, dressing Santa in Coca Cola's colours and spending a small fortune on presents, celebrating 'trick or treat' (American import -didn't happen when I was a lad, we did penny for the Guy), buying Mother's Day cards (instead of Mothering Sunday cards) and dining on Big Macs and fries (chips for God's sake) you can talk of protecting your culture. When was the last time you went to a Harvest Home or attended a church 'ale' or even attended an Anglican Church (other than hatches, matches and despatches) - HMTQ is head of the church, you'd have thought it would have been seen as an essential part of our culture since it was created by a syphilitic Welsh madman who wanted to divorce his dago wife so he could marry his bit on the side (beheaded for mothering Elizabeth I and not producing sons as well as shagging about). I'll bet you don't even drink real ale, but drink that sterile canned fizz or English lager (Carling - hah!). __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

04-09-2007, 03:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,987	Drinking Stella in pints is not English! __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

04-09-2007, 11:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Little Englander (sour) Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 949 Party: English Democrats	Unfortunately there is nothing, in law, to stop a national government denying human rights to it's own citizens, however, they cannot deny the human rights to immigrants, especially from Europe. In fact I don't think you can use the term immigrant when applied to someone, settled here, who comes from another EU country.

04-09-2007, 12:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
crac Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 126	It's about the principle, about protecting the wellbeing of the majority cultural rights holders and not those other issues, which could be described as procedural. It doesn't matter that it's not a specific law. It's about establishing the principle, which is already firmly entrenched in our society anyway that race and culture has rights. The issue of other rights holders , sure ,it's already agreed that they have rights in principle. But they are not the dominant culture so ....you have to realistic about how the principle is applied. Culture it's a fairly simple matter to define it in general terms and for that to include the fact that it varies from place to place, it includes the fact that it does change over time and absorbe new ideas etc. Culture is the way people live and is a combination of people and their interaction with their ecology over time The ways they have develped to exploit the resources of their environment and how they have celebrated and translated the meanings they find in their experience of life in to song dance art music design and so on.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode