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 thoughts on “Who Determines ‘Universal Values’?

      1. @ 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.

    1. @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!

      1. 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.

        1. @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.

          1. 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.

            1. @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.

      2. @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 example and you’re doing a crappy job of it with your rhetoric. It’s a bit simplistic but that’s pretty well how it works.
        I called you a bottom feeder because you are hung up on rhetorical bile that doesn’t provide any value to conversation yet you scream and cry that you must be heard. When I imagine you and others like joe and james all I can think of is the sound of spittle striking the grille of a megaphone. Perhaps that’s shortsighted and you’re really a thoughtful individual. I’d prefer it, and so would the rest of the internet, if you’d spend some time developing better stated arguments and stop barfing about BHO being from Kenya, particularly when it’s not relevant.

        1. @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!

          1. 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.

        2. @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.

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

            1. @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.

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

        3. @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.

          1. @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 to armed discord over disagreements. Again I say we should be the example to be followed. Always lead with peace first and take up arms only when all other options are exhausted, not merely when we feel slighted. Like the man said: speak softly, then beat him with the stick.

            1. @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 review of your written work shows you to be an insulting person.

            2. @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 decades America was great and the world looked on and said “I want what they have!” We’re not that anymore. Conservatives have been painted with a broad brush as brash, braying jackasses because a few are. If we are all to be taken seriously we must ALL act like we can be taken seriously. You know why Alex Jones is such a danger to conservatism in America? It’s not because he’s wrong, it’s because he acts like a nutjob. When people run around screaming you can use ARs to full-auto mow down school assemblies we decry their stupidity and rightly so. In the correct context both of those statements are correct because with the correct evidence it’s easy to illustrate why Alex may need a relaxing weekend at Arkham and with the right parts it’s not hard to convert an AR.
              Everyone needs to calm the hell down and use some logic. Be the example. Instead of describing what kind of punji stick filled hole you’d like to throw my still living body in to how about reading and understanding what I say first, then developing a cogent counter argument? I’d love to have some civil discourse but holy crap, it seems to be absent of late.
              Since someone else is likely to say it yes, I realize I’m not exactly following my own advice here. The difference is I’m trying to spark a debate, a discussion about the issue that informs to allow one to come to their own conclusion. Obviously my intent is to sway you to my point of view. I don’t, however, feel like I’m deliberately attacking anyone. I called out the people I felt were most likely to respond. ‘If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.’ Like Russian vodka: cheap, but effective.

    2. 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 be taught in any public school.” Pat, our nation was founded on the precept of the freedom of religion. Yes, that precept was the protection of protestantism that was persecuted against by the Church of England but, as we’ve all been reminding each other lately, the First Amendment is the reason number one the Second Amendment exists. Just because we’re not Christian’s doesn’t mean we’re (all) worthless, nor do we (all) think you’re worthless.

      So to everyone I say do not follow the example of the following bottom feeders in the comments of this article: tomcat, james, joe. Instead be the example that makes the world a better place that doesn’t foment the hatred, the vitriol, the bilious rhetoric espoused by both sides that makes the rest of the world look at America like we’re all stupid. We’re better than this.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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”?

    6. 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…

    7. 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 we would never have to deal with our country being so degraded or know what a Kardashian is………….. yeah yeah I know, meds and all that…. whatever, just saying what you are thinking….

      1. 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.

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

      1. 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?

    Leave a Comment 34 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *