You Leave Your Rights at the Door, but not your Beliefs

David Cameron has suggested that ‘the moment a burglar steps over your threshold… I think they leave their human rights outside’. The Daily Mail published an article on this that has so far attracted over 338 comments, of which the majority (and best rated) are people saying it is about time we’re allowed Carte Blanche in our own homes. The Daily Mail have done their best to hype things up a little bit with a few choice phrases such as: ‘Under existing laws, homeowners are allowed to use only ‘reasonable’ force to tackle a burglar’.

This is put forward as if it is unreasonable that homeowners are only allowed to use reasonable force, as if somehow homeowners are being cheated out of a basic right to defend themselves and their homes. This is, of course, utter rubbish. Reasonable force sounds vague precisely because it is designed to be flexible. For example, if a burglar breaks into your house and is subdued merely by being discovered and cowers in fear whilst you call the police, who then turn up to arrest him; it is safe to assume that reasonable force in this instance would be making sure the burglar did not leave the premises. Unreasonable force in this instance would be knocking the burglar to the ground with a cricket bat and beating him to within an inch of his life.

However, should the burglar try to escape by grabbing a kitchen knife and trying to stab the homeowner; then reasonable force would cover the homeowner grabbing a chair and knocking out the burglar and so on and so forth. Reasonable force can cover pretty much any act carried out by someone protecting their home and perhaps more importantly their family as long as the circumstances justify the force. This – to me at least – sounds reasonable and I can see why the phrase legislation is called ‘reasonable force’.

The idea that burglars are no longer human beings once they enter your house is to suggest that we can just give anyone a damn good beating and worse even if they don’t pose a real threat. It’s a slippery slope which we perhaps don’t want to go down when reasonable force can protect ‘law abiding citizens’ who – according to the comments on the Mail article – seem to be suffering from the advent of universal human rights.

Perhaps now is a good time to examine just what rights homeowners should have in their own home and consider the case of Paddy and Stephanie Lynch, who invited into their home a maths tutor for their 14 year old daughter who is unable to attend school because she has Leukaemia. This couple invited the maths tutor – Olive Jones – into their ‘non-religious’ home to tutor their daughter in maths. However, according to this couple Olive Jones:

“used every opportunity to discuss religion, despite the fact I made it clear we were a non-religious family and didn’t want to talk about these issues in this way. On one occasion she asked my daughter to pray with her. My daughter was distressed by this behaviour.

“On another, after the death of my daughter’s close friend, Mrs Jones told my 14-year-old daughter that when young people die they go to heaven. These conversations upset my daughter deeply. The sessions with Mrs Jones became increasingly traumatic and we decided it was not appropriate for this woman to come to my home.”

However, rather than report this story as more evidence that homeowners need more rights and that visitors ‘should lose the right to convert your loved ones to their religion once they enter your house’ the Daily Mail attacked the parents and suggested that this was another disgraceful attack on Christianity.

So there you have it, you should be allowed to give anyone who breaks into your home a damn good kicking whether it is necessary or not, but you should not be allowed to defend your daughter from a maths teacher with a penchant for distressing your daughter with religious propaganda.

For full details and the latest on the appalling Daily Mail reporting of the Olive Jones case – attacking the family for trying to protect their child – see Tabloidwatch’s post: ‘Who are the zealots? (cont.)‘ and his original post on the subject: ‘You can’t upset a 14yo girl with leukaemia any more – it’s political correctness gone mad!‘.

For more on the ‘burglars should lose human rights at the door’ story you might also want to look at Nadine Dorries’ tweets on the subject which are looked at over on the Nadine Dorries Project: ‘Not All Humans Have Human Rights‘.

The worrying insanity of Peter Hitchens

Sometimes when I read the Daily Mail I wonder if it isn’t all a large practical joke being played out by creative writers who want to out-do each other with ever wackier viewpoints and rants. So many columnists writing for the Mail just don’t seem human – the amazing vacuity of Liz Jones and Amanda Platell, the utter bitchy pointlessness of Jan Moir, the vicious ramblings of Melanie Phillips and the predictably terrible drivel repeated by Littlejohn year after year. Still, even when you read these columnists regularly you still get shocked when a different Mail writer tries to trump them all with his utter insanity: step forward Peter Hitchens.

You should never judge someone by how they look, but I think in the case of Peter Hitchens we should at least address the fact that he looks evil. I won’t post a picture of him here because I don’t want his face scaring the occasional visitor that happens across this blog. He looks like the kind of person that has chopped his family into pieces and keeps various body parts in the fridge and freezer. He has the kind of face that scares local children who concoct rumours that he secretly kills dogs and eats them, if any kind of ball went into his garden no kid would dare fetch it.

I appreciate that all of this is rambling rubbish, but how else can you respond to a Peter Hitchens’ column that contains the following passages:

Of course I’d like to think that I would give a terrible thrashing to any burglar who broke in to my home. But I would be crazy to do so. It would be me who ended up in prison. In any case, what makes me think I’d come off best in a fight with some gaunt, rangy dope-smoker?

I long ago decided that the only wise thing to do would be to make the thief a cup of tea and ask him to sign a release form confirming that I had not harmed him in any way. I advise all my readers to do the same.

The solution to the problem does not lie in our having the freedom to bash burglars.

Though we ought to have that freedom as a matter of course, it would be more use as a deterrent than in practice.

The solution lies in a political change at the top – the expulsion from government of the socialists and liberals who have taken over all three major parties and driven justice from our country.

This liberal elite do not believe that burglary is wrong, so they won’t punish burglars properly. They think burglars steal because they are deprived, or because they were abused as children, or because they cannot get ‘treatment’ for their disgusting criminal drug habits. So many of our leaders now are unrepentant illegal drug-takers themselves that they shouldn’t be trusted near the making of laws.

Suddenly, after reading the insanity of Peter Hitchens my introduction – which is largely utter rubbish – seems to be a wonderfully composed and thought-out critique. Peter Hitchens is actually paid to write this shit. To actually write down that most of our elected leaders are ‘unrepentant illegal drug-takers’ and that somehow this has led to a person who (with two accomplices) chased down and beat the shit of out someone with various weapons being sent to jail.

He isn’t finished there either. He still finds room to make up some shite about that silly christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships:

We are told by the Appeal Court that in a ‘modern liberal democracy’ the freedom to express Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals. So the law of England now says Lillian Ladele, a registrar who politely asked to be excused from conducting civil partnership ceremonies, must stifle her principles or give up her job.

This is the hard face of the same movement which has in recent years been doing its best to take the ‘Christ’ out of Christmas, and has marginalised our national religion in the schools and in broadcasting, often in the name of freedom.

Freedom for whom? Our ‘modern liberal’ society is not liberal at all towards those who continue to believe the message of the angels.

You get the impression with Peter Hitchens and most of the intellectually challenged keyboard stabbers that write for the Mail that their main problem is that they read the Daily Mail and believe it. Hitchens packs his columns with lazy conclusions arrived at by a lying newspaper. Thus he writes that all criminals are let out whilst the law-abiding are put away, that Christmas has been banned and that the world is run by some kind of liberal-elite that are – ironically – always accused of not being liberal.

The worst thing about the Daily Mail is just when you think it cannot get any madder, someone like Peter Hitchens pops up to remind you that it can.