Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "'How do you turn human rights off?' Isabel Webster questions Michelle Donelan on new migrant law" video.

There are no such things as human rights. There are only privileges, and when a privilege is abused it may be withdrawn.
18
@JH-lf4ql I really must get a new keyboard! The letters on mine are quite worn away from overuse!
1
@shadowbandedfortruthspreading No, it grants rights. It does not pretend they have a separate existence.
1
@nilsalmquist802 I am quite content with the protections offered by the traditions and legislations offered by my own country. I neither need nor am happy with foreign interference in these matters.
1
@shadowbandedfortruthspreading All it does is to remove certain powers from the King and redistribute them among the nobility. There is no suggestion that those rights and privileges are immutable. As you rightly say, it creates a form of government which rules by legislation, which means of course that legislation may be altered - which is what is happening now with regard to the cross-channel immigrants. The concept of human rights is as ill-founded as the concept of the divine right of kings.
1
@shadowbandedfortruthspreading The Bill of Rights consists of amendments to the Constitution which further proves the point that "rights" are not divinely granted nor immutable, but are, as I said originally, privileges granted by legislation and can be amended or withdrawn as circumstances dictate. They are bits of paper. They are not engraved on tablets of stone by God, nor embedded in human consciousness by evolution.
1
@shadowbandedfortruthspreading I think the trouble might be that you are not explaining things very well. You appear to believe that "human rights" somehow exist beyond the legislation which encompasses them and, in fact creates them, such as they are. If this is an incorrect assessment of your view then please tell me. If it is a correct assessment then you are plainly wrong, and if it is Neil Oliver's view, then he is wrong too. I doubt it is though. Magna Carta, especially in its later forms, certainly provides the basis of a system of justice and the "rights" it establishes are still reflected in contemporary jurisprudence to some degree; but they only exist insofar as legislation exists to outline them. This means that legislation can be introduced to amend or alter them if required - which is what I said in the first place.
1
@shadowbandedfortruthspreading Quite a number of British rulers have tried to get rid of Magna Carta - or Magna Farta as Oliver Cromwell amusingly called it - but only three or so of its original precepts remain enshrined in British Law and none of them, I think, gives a bunch of foreigners the right to grant another bunch of foreigners the right to invade our land without redress.
1