Plans to curb immigration and re-introduce quotas top the Swiss ballot sheet on February 9. A separate proposal seeks to shift the financing system for abortions. Voters also have the final say on a state fund for the country’s railway infrastructure.
And the voice of the British people on immigration is where? And the voice of the British people on HS2 is where? Come to that, just where is the voice of the British people on any individual question that affects their lives?
Reverting to the two preceding posts on Racial Programming, it is interesting to note that the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action states: All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related - but I digress.
Let us consider The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
If everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), then why are all three denied us by the system of representative democracy?
If no one shall be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4), then why are we subjected to the system of representative democracy?
If everyone has the right to a nationality, then why are there political decisions taken that would deprive us of our nationality?
If everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right including the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19), then if we have the right to impart our ideas through any media, why is that not possible?
If everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives (Article 21), then should not the people be given the choice to decide which method they would prefer?
If everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control (Article 25), then is it not the right of individuals to collectively decide what those rights are, together with the method of provision; rather than have them arbitrarily imposed on them?
It is all very well having ‘rights’ but when those ‘rights’ are not freely decided by people but are imposed on them, then those ‘rights’ cannot be right.