Starmer’s commitment to universal human rights – which necessarily implies open borders – is now a threat to national security and, paradoxically, the human rights of the British people. By welcoming el-Fattah, a virulent anti-Semite, Starmer has violated the right of our Jewish community to feel secure in their own land. His refusal to police the pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic hate marchers since October 2023 has also trampled on the security of British Jews and infringed upon their liberty – Central London has become a no-go zone.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
Samizdata quote of the day – Starmer poses a threat to the Human Rights of the British PeopleDecember 30th, 2025 |
 17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Starmer poses a threat to the Human Rights of the British PeopleLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Does the current british regime consider the british people to have human rights compared to say members of the Ummah? Where are their priorities?
I don’t believe the government (Tory or Labour), civil service or media were ignorant of el-Fattah’s previous social media because the EU parliament had previously withdrawn him from consideration from a prize in 2014 after they were revealed. Perhaps our entire political and media class are actually stupider than the EU parliament,but I doubt it. They can dig up the social media of very obscure Reform or Corbynite council candidates to ruin them but we are expected to believe no one bothered with this chap. I do wonder if the man is some sort of intelligence asset related to Arab spring and the full story is not being told.
I am intrigued that both the Guardian and BBC have now printed some of the anti-white tweets el-Fattah made. Not the most violent ones, but I find it interesting what was printed as in similar cases in the past the press have almost always been very coy about exposing the anti-white sentiments from social media loudmouths.
Politicians get whatever briefing the civil service sees fit to give them. They do no research of their own. So we can fairly assume that the civil service wanted Fattah to be made a British citizen. Why? I don’t know, I just get the impression they hate us and wish us dead.
If you are a globalist, then the very phrase “the British people” includes not only the “heritage groups”, but the newly received, as well as any and all people that might come in the future.
So Starmer is being true to his beliefs.
His philosophy will never be one that can be argued away from anyone, in that case. The underlying propositions are entirely contradictory.
Labour came to power and Starmer became Prime Minister in July 2024. I don’t like him either but October 2023 to July 2024 was on the Tory’s watch.
Good point well made.
Arguably the Tories currently trying to launder their reputations by turning on a man they championed while in office are even more dubious than Starmer.
Never forget that the Tories were 90% as malignant as Labour and in the same direction. Starmer has said he would sleep easy under a Tory government and that’s all you need to know.
What does the author mean by ‘police the march’? If he means that the police should be arresting individuals who incite violence, then I would agree. If, like so many other commentators, he thinks they should be banned outright simply because he finds them offensive, then he is no better than the woke authoritarians.
Get the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen – compare them side by side.
At first they appear similar – but if you read carefully you will see they are very different.
The American Bill of Rights really is about limiting the power of government, defending the liberty of the individual human beings. The French Declaration is NOT.
And all modern “Declarations” and “Conventions”, if you read them carefully, are also NOT about defending the basic liberties of individual human beings – quite the contrary. They are more likely to support “holidays with pay” (or whatever) than they are Freedom of Speech or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
As a “human rights lawyer” and a leading member of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyer, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer knows the above – he knows it very well.
And he delights in this wickedness (for wickedness it is) – but it is not just Sir Keir Starmer who supports this vicious deception (namely documents that proclaim they defend liberty – whilst, in reality, undermining liberty).
It is the entire British establishment – or rather the local branch of the international establishment.
Why does human rights automatically mean open borders? Why does my right to my property automatically mean somebody in Kenya has the right to move to Tanzania?
jgh – because what the left mean by “human rights” has nothing-what-ever to do with what the term traditionally meant in the natural law – natural justice tradition.
The Premier of New South Wales (Bondi beach massacre) had a moment of honesty about all this….
He said that Freedom of Speech had to be be destroyed – in order to enable a “multi cultural society”.
That is better than the habitual liar Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – who keeps say how “precious” and “sacred” Freedom of Speech is to him – as he exterminates Freedom of Speech.
But the Premier of New South Wales does not make the obvious deduction – if such things as Freedom of Speech have to be destroyed for the sake of a “multi cultural society” then a “multi cultural society” is clearly a Bad Thing (TM).
You can have different ethnic groups living in the same jurisdiction – Florida has just about as many people as Australia, and it is very ethnically diverse.
But NOT “multi cultural” in the sense of different basic principles.
If people do not accept the basic principles – then they should be KICKED OUT.
For example, the terrible people (and they are terrible people) who voted for Mayor Elect Mamdani in New York City.
It is not their skin colour that is evil – it is their beliefs, their principles, that are evil.
Paul Marks, out of curiousity- https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/declaration_of_the_rights_of_man_1789.pdf what clauses in the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen do you view as pernicious? What’s the Achilles’ heel here? I’d be interested in an expansion of your reasoning.
nweismuller – note how it deals with people as a collective, not as individual persons.
That is the core of the problem.
That is why, for example, if you said to a modern French politician or official that the laws of France violate liberty the French government person would not agree – as, they would say, the laws are made by the people (via their elected representatives) and-this-is-freedom.
Freedom in the sense of Rousseau (the rights of the Collective people) – rather than the sense of Montesquieu (limitation on government power over individuals).
It is sometimes forgotten that the political thinker the American Founding Fathers cited the most was French – but it was Montesquieu, not Rousseau.
nweismuller – also note that when it PRETENDS to protect individuals there is, at once, a “take back clause” showing that it does NOT protect individual rights.
For example, people have freedom of speech – UNLESS their opinions “disturb public order” – so “I like pussy cats” would be fine, but “I think the Revolution is a blunder” would NOT be fine – not at all.
And there is the standard tap dance about people having various liberties – UNLESS there is a law passed saying they do not.
Which means they do NOT have these liberties.
The document is written to sound as if it defends individual liberties – whilst, in reality, NOT doing so.
In this it is the model for modern “conventions” and “declarations”.
Thank you, that helps, Paul.
In hindsight the language around ‘rights’ looks begging to be subverted and become some magic phrase to sell bullshit and deter rational scrutiny. It’s a game the left will always win as they can always offer more and new rights.
Curiously this el-Fattah story has completely gone from the news cycle by now.
It’s unfortunate. Lots of rightful outrage created by it, but it changes nothing.