Who Determines ‘Universal Values’?

Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia
Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Is it any of Canada's business whether Saudi women have the right to drive?

Well, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland just made it her business.

Repeatedly denouncing Riyadh's arrest of women's rights advocate Samar Badawi, Freeland has driven the two countries close to a break in diplomatic relations

“Reprehensible,” said Riyadh of Freeland's tweeted attack. Canada is “engaged in blatant interference in the Kingdom's domestic affairs.”

The Saudis responded by expelling Canada's ambassador and ordering 15,000 Saudi students to end their studies in Canada and barred imports of Canadian wheat. A $15 billion contract to provide armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia may be in jeopardy.

Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been backsliding on his promises to modernize the kingdom, appears to have had enough of Western lectures on democratic values and morality.

A week after Pope Francis denounced the death penalty as always “impermissible,” Riyadh went ahead and crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality can get you a death sentence.

Neither President Donald Trump nor the State Department has taken sides, but The Washington Post has weighed in with an editorial: “Human Rights Are Everyone's Business.”

“What Ms. Freeland and Canada correctly understand is that human rights … are universal values, not the property of kings and dictators to arbitrarily grant and remove on a whim. Saudi Arabia's long-standing practice of denying basic rights to citizens, especially women — and its particularly cruel treatment of some dissidents — such as the public lashes meted out to (Ms. Badawi's brother) — are matters of legitimate concern to all democracies and free societies.

“It is the traditional role of the United States to defend universal values everywhere they are trampled upon and to show bullying autocrats they cannot get away with hiding their dirty work behind closed doors.”

The Post called on the foreign ministers of all Group of Seven nations to retweet Freeland's post saying, “Basic rights are everybody's business.”

But these sweeping assertions raise not a few questions.

Who determines what are “basic rights” or “universal values”?

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that has never permitted women to drive and has always whipped criminals and had a death penalty.

When did these practices first begin to contradict “universal values”?

When did it become America's “traditional role” to defend women's right to drive automobiles in every country, when women had no right to vote in America until after World War I?

In the America of the 1950s, homosexuality and abortion were regarded as shameful offenses and serious crimes. Now abortion and homosexuality have been declared constitutional rights.

Are they basic human rights? To whom? Do 55 million abortions in the U.S. in 45 years not raise an issue of human rights?

Has it become the moral duty of the U.S. government to champion abortion and LGBT rights worldwide, when a goodly slice of America still regards them as marks of national decadence and decline?

And if the Saudis are reactionaries whom we should join Canada in condemning, why are we dreaming up an “Arab NATO” in which Saudi Arabia would be a treaty ally alongside whom we would fight Iran?

Iran, at least, holds quadrennial elections, and Iranian women seem less restricted and anti-regime demonstrations more tolerated than they are in Saudi Arabia.

Consider our own history.

From 1865 to 1965, segregation was the law in the American South. Did those denials of civil and political rights justify foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the United States?

How would President Eisenhower, who used troops to integrate Little Rock High, have responded to the British and French demanding that America end segregation now?

In a newly de-Christianized America, all religions are to be treated equally and none may be taught in any public school.

In nearly 50 nations, however, Muslims are the majority, and they believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and all other religions are false. Do Muslims have no right to insist upon the primacy of their faith in the nations they rule?

Is Western interference with this claim not a formula for endless conflict?

In America, free speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed. And these First Amendment rights protect libel, slander, filthy language, blasphemy, pornography, flag burning and published attacks on religious beliefs, our country itself, and the government of the United States.

If other nations reject such freedoms as suicidal stupidity, do we have some obligation to intervene in their internal affairs to promote them?

Recently, The Independent reported:

“Since last year, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region in northwest China have been unjustly arrested and imprisoned in what the Chinese government calls ‘political re-education camps.' Thousands have disappeared. There are credible reports of torture and death among the prisoners. … The international community has largely reacted with silence.”

Anyone up for sanctioning Xi Jinping's China?

Or do Uighurs' rights rank below those of Saudi feminists?


About Patrick J. BuchananPat Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

34
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
13 Comment threads
21 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
tomcatLarry BrickeygryyphynWild BillWhuffagowie Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

One thing that upsets me is I often have to wait for hours to reply to a post.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@ Larry Brikey, you took several days to launch your latest attack on me but it wasn’t worth much. You claim I called you a nutcase which is totally untrue. If you are commenting to me saying your best buddy is a nutcase you are wrong again. My comment was that his post was nutcase. All I called you was clown troll, which still applies. Please go peacefully back under your rock or to mommy’s basement and try to heal from your run-away imagination.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@Gryyphyn or what ever this mess of alphabet characters represents, what are you getting at, should we praise the Kenyon for bowing to a Saudi king and showing his big posterior?
Maybe you need to get back on your meds or maybe you just need to tip toe through the tulips. You got some attention if that was what you were looking for and I need to finish by calling you a POS. Do not call people bottom feeders if you do not know the person. Asswipe!

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Bowing to somebody’s king has always been the proper way. We just refused to do it out of arrogance. Arrogance is not a virtue. It does not lower our standing in the world if it happens. It does not say our President is less than you are to said royalty. They know who has the real power.
Do nations have the right to point fingers at each other? It happens all the time. Usually it is ignored. Newt asks some good questions. Try answering them without insults.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Larry Bickley, No such thing as royalty. We refuse to bow out of equality. What is a “right to point fingers”. You would make yourself a slave, We the People will not be going with you.

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Much of the world disagrees with you, WB. Following such a tradition in greeting a Royal is not being subservient in any way, shape or form. Where did you get the information of not bowing “out of equality”? Not in the Constitution and I don’t see it in law. No, I won’t be anybody’s slave. Apparently anyone who might not see all of it your way is a Communist serf, or wants to be.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@LB, I don’t much care what “much of the world” agrees with. So called royalty were those that killed bigger than their competitors.
Subordinates salute or bow to superiors. Americans have no superiors. We don’t bow. We don’t dip our flag.
You already have the slave mentality. You demonstrate it here. You better be glad that there is lots of law enforcement to protect you because you could not protect your self.

Gryyphyn
Guest
Gryyphyn

@tomcat No, sunshine. That collection of characters represents a simple idea that answers the question Pat asked in the article. Since needs must I shall provide a step by step process. Q: Who determines universal values [and how]? A: Society does by experimentation. Multiple petri dish societies called cities, states and countries are created with their own laws. A popularity contest of sorts is run and, in the end, the most popular system is adopted by the most places with the highest populations. Eventually population equilibrium is reached and a single system wins out. We should strive to be said… Read more »

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@gryyp shit You are preaching to the choir with your nutcase, far left ignorant post. I have nothing to say to a twerp that starts out calling people names. You need to go bow to someone and everyone of your fellow idiots within your snowflake party. I have formed my opinion of you with your first post and it won’t go away. The last thing I have to say to you is: Miss on you pister, go back off in your own jack yard. Asshat!

Gryyphyn
Guest
Gryyphyn

Ammoland mods: please leave @tomcat’s response here. It specifically and perfectly illustrates the exact point I was making despite likely violating the comment rules.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@gryyphyn One more thing, if you do not like what I post then don’t read it. You didn’t need to get your panties in a wad because I commented about the Kenyon sticking his big butt out while defacing himself in the eyes of the Saudi king and the other terrorists there.

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

So greeting Royalty in the ago old manner is self defacing? Since when? It’s respect for tradition and puts nobody down.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@Larry Brickey Every since you have been commenting here you have come across as the clown of the trolls. Shut your yap and go back to mommy’s basement. By the way, if you are so convinced that omumer did the right thing then you have to explain why all the news people about had kittens over it.

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Tomcat, this is for your reply. Seems if anyone disagrees with you they are a nutcase. What a closed mind you have!

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Gryyphyn, You answer your own question incorrectly. You fail your own exam. The correct answer is: Whomever kills the biggest determines the values, makes the rules, and is the government. You start out on the wrong foot and the rest is just spittle hitting your computer screen.

gryyphyn
Guest
gryyphyn

@Wild Bill I’m not sure which founding father you think you’re quoting but I feel quite certain none of them had a desire to go to war. No sir, I bet they all had every intention of using force as the FINAL solution, not the first. So to climb up on your soap box and shout ‘bigger sticks make better rules’ is not only short sighted, it runs contrary to the values upon which this country was founded. We are peaceful creatures who desire to pursue our lives in peace. We may have spirited discussions but polite society doesn’t degenerate… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@gryyh, They all desired war, did go to war and defeated King George’s forces. Then they made the rules. And now days, the city council makes rules and uses the city Police Department to enforce those rules by force. The various states have numerous armed state agencies. The feds have an uncountable number of federal agencies all making “rules with the force and effect of law”, and enforcing their dictates with armed agents. Nor did I write better rule. I wrote “the rules”. You say that you are a peaceful person and all that following prevarication, but even a cursory… Read more »

gryyphyn
Guest
gryyphyn

@Wild Bill I never said I wasn’t insulting. I didn’t set out to be deliberately so but I’m not responsible for anyone’s feelbads unless I mean to trod upon them. In this instance I had no intention of doing so, little though I care. In all of this muckraking my point seems to be missed over and over again. The way to affect change is not to beat people about the ears with rhetoric and sticks until they capitulate out of fear or, more likely, a desire for the irritant to STFU. Be the example. Lead from the front. For… Read more »

Gryyphyn
Guest
Gryyphyn

The goal is to be that which becomes most desirable to be emulated, the example to be followed. The problem we have is we’re viewed as ‘too conservative’ because some stupid people have sold the world on socialism. Who doesn’t want free stuff? And before any of you answer that you don’t care I want you to send your Subway Club cards to 123 My Street, Anytown USA 12345 so I can have all your points. I agree with what Pat but for one statement: “In a newly de-Christianized America, all religions are to be treated equally and none may… Read more »

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Well said.

Gryyphyn
Guest
Gryyphyn

Thank you Larry.

Whuffagowie
Guest
Whuffagowie

I wanna know when they’re going to outlaw the cars that cause drunk driving!

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

We are so much better off to mind our own business and not mettle in other countries and their religion. Let the Canooks be the nanny of the world if they think they can stand up to the job. The Kenyon left us with enough bad will and weakness in the world that will last us for a long time.

james
Guest
james

The World Famous JV ex POTUS BHO bowed down the King and Emperor but he BENT OVER for the AYATOLLAH.

William
Guest
William

Well Canada needs to first put a listing of Individual Rights in their own national constitution. This would be a good start. Of course, they could never do this because those rights as outline in our constitution are designed to protect and define the freedoms each individual has from birth. Each of our rights is established to protect the individual citizen from the governmental tyranny.
Saudi Arabia has made a huge step in the right direction. I’m sure more steps will follow.

Richard Hunker
Guest
Richard Hunker

The Saudis responded by expelling Canada’s ambassador and ordering 15,000 Saudi students to end their studies in Canada and barred imports of Canadian wheat. A $15 billion contract to provide armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia may be in jeopardy.
Will Canada’s position change when their pocketbooks gets “hit”?

Vernon Kuhns
Guest
Vernon Kuhns

To highlight the problem with Canada condemning Saudi Arabia, they accept and defend Muslims and Sharia law in Canada. In the US the left claims Sharia is compatible with the Constitution…

Joe
Guest
Joe

Oh, look we there… it’s the “ONE ZIPPER LICKER APOLOGY TOUR” He admitted on video he was from Kenya, Allan Keyes is vindicated as is the great Joe Arpio. ALL LAWS PASSED BY THIS FRAUDULENT piece of crap are null and void, just like his illegal fake presidency. Fuck him, his so called half white, 6% arab, 44%black legacy, his colluding cabinet. His piece of shit commie scotus appointments, and his entire elitist socialist party. I agree with a friend of mine, a time machine trip for me would be to make sure his and on Simpsons mothesr aborted so… Read more »

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Road Apples.

John Piotrowski
Guest
John Piotrowski

One of the most shameful displays by an American president that I’ve ever seen. Disgusting………..

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

Is the US President a better person than the Royalty he’s meeting? “When in Rome…..” It’s called respect, pure and simple. Nothing lowering about it.

Missouri Born
Guest
Missouri Born

Driving in the United States isn’t a right it’s a privilege.

sage419
Guest
sage419

If you don’t like the rules, don’t live there. A sentiment that applies to many “activists” in the USA as well…

B
Guest
B

That’s gonna be problematic for those imprisoned, denied foreign travel, visas, and access to transportation by said rules. Like most questions of moral enforcement, It’s a problem with very complicated perhaps untenable answers.
Incidentally, it’s a pretty safe bet that most of the world’s “liberal” (liberal by these Saudi standards) Muslim population would find the U.S. conservative’s Ideal National moral standard to be pretty much optimal. Are you prepared to invite them all in if they do manage to leave?