UKCAF website

Parliament, paedophiles,
and water fluoridation.

Judge upholds paedophile's human rights,
but Minister rejects right of children not to be subjected to degrading treatment.

Doug Cross
25th September 2011

Britain's disreputable record on human rights.
When it comes to human rights, the British government’s record is not exactly spotless. It has refused to sign the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the leading source of law on the regulation of medical interventions.

It has also recently announced its determination to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it by a Bill of Rights. But as I have repeatedly explained, any such Bill would be merely a State-mandated catalogue of civil liberties, and would not necessarily be compatible with the range of human rights recognised elsewhere.

And in any case, the Convention prohibits the abolition of any right once it has been established.

Paedophiles have rights . . .
Two incidents stand out in the past couple of weeks. A paedophile banned in Lancashire from a public park, to keep him away from children, has had the court order relaxed because it was ‘a breach of his human rights’ . Christopher Williams claimed it prevented him from keeping fit – and now, after an appeal, a court has agreed.

Judge Andrew Woolman, sitting with two magistrates at Burnley Crown Court on 17th September, ruled that Williams, who has health problems, should be allowed to exercise in his local park under certain conditions.

He said: ‘If we did not allow him, it would be potentially damaging to his health and would probably be a breach of his human rights.’

. . . but Minister denies children’s rights
And last week, in the House of Lords and in response to a question from our trusty fluoride watchdog, Earl Baldwin, the Minister, Earl Howe, contemptuously stated that"any infringement of human rights arising out of water fluoridation is justified by the benefits to oral health."

So it is the government’s official position that it’s OK to abolish a child’s human right not to be subjected to treatment that could leave it disfigured for life, if some unidentified kid with bad teeth might - or indeed, might not, benefit as a result.

I suggest that many people would disagree with Earl Howe on that point - possibly quite vigorously.

Not all rights are equal
So let’s compare these two incidents, as they reveal just how far our Parliamentary masters have gone down the path of pure fascism in protecting their obsession with fluoride.

The key to the paedophile’s supposed right to exexrcise is understanding the difference between absolute and relative human rights. This governs the code of civil liberties that forms a large section of the legal framework under which we run our society.

Absolute rights are the property of the individual, and may not be violated, by another individual or even by the State itself. Relative, or conditional, rights are those that are subject to the rights of others and of the society in which we live.

They may be exercised by an individual only when an acceptable compromise is agreed with those who also enjoy the same or competing rights.

The right to refuse medication is absolute.
For example, the right to refuse medication is absolute. But if you have a highly contagious and dangerous disease, this could infect and kill another person, in violation of their absolute right to life.

In such circumstances your right to liberty is a conditional right - you may be detained by the State in quarantine to prevent the disease spreading to others.

But even then, your absolute right to refuse medication that could save your life remains in effect; you cannot be forcibly treated and cured against your will.

Balancing the books - the importance of proportionality.
The crucial test of how to apply a relative right lies in the principle of proportionality. The ban on the paedophile was introduced to prevent him molesting children in the park.

The right of children not to be subject to such molestation is an absolute right - a paedophile cannot claim to have a right to molest children, because that would overturn the absolute right of children not to be molested.

The judge was forced to decide whether the ban on the paedophile was disproportionate, because it could have restricted his right to freedom of movement more than its relaxation would have restricted the rights of children to enjoy freedom of movement by playing in the park even more.

But keeping the ban would not have stopped the paedophile from taking his exercise elsewhere.

The right to freedom of movement is a relative right, and is subject to rules under the civil liberties code of this society. These recognise the equal right of children to use the park without interference.

The role of civil liberties in regulating relative rights
Our over-friendly neighbourhood paedophile might, of course, decide to take his exercise on the fast lane of the local motorway, even if at considerable personal risk.

But he might then cause a pile-up and the death of innocent motorists, which would be a serious violation of their right not to be subject to activities by others that could result in their death.

So reasonably enough, our rules on civil liberties dictate that such activity must be prohibited in law. Within our society as we mutually accept it, we permit people to take exercise, but not in a fashion that threatens other people's rights.

The right not to be subject to degrading treatment is absolute.
And this is especially the case when the exercise of a right by one individual may conflict with an absolute right by another. A code of civil liberties must automatically recognise that absolute rights must be protected under all circumstances - they cannot be downgraded to relative rights on the whim of government policy.

This is why Earl Howe’s offensive rejection of Earl Baldwins challenge is so despicable. The right of children not to be subjected to potentially disfiguring treatment - in Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention such treatment is refered to as ‘degrading’ - is absolute. It is prohibited - no competing right of another person may be invoked to challenge or modify that prohibition, by another person or by the State itself.

Dental fluorosis can be utterly degrading
Having to live with disfigured teeth is undoubtedly degrading - watch my video on 'Rachel's Story' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQSZHF8eI4) to hear one young woman's experience of growing up in England with moderate dental fluorosis. So even if fluoridation worked - which it does not - it violates the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment imposed under Article 3 of the Convention.

What right have kids with bad teeth that others do not have?
Of course children with bad teeth have the right to dental treatment - but that right is itself a conditional right. Treatment cannot be given in a fashion that violates the absolute right of other children not to be subjected to degrading treatment.

Equally, our paedophile member of society is free to exercise elsewhere, provided he does not threaten other children.

Earl Howe's arrogant statement exposes his failure to understand the principles that underlie the human rights legislation.

His claim that 'any infringement' is acceptable 'if' it protects a few children from tooth decay does not identify which right he supports the government violating in its irrational and illegal policy, irrespective of whether fluoridation actually works.

The illegal trade-off of many kid’s rights against those of a few..
Quite simply, Earl Howe has put on record the government's position that it is entitled to violate the absolute prohibition on degrading treatment of children, that disfigures thousands of English children each year.

It appears to be his view that any such violation of a child's rights is acceptable if it results in a few children having slightly less dental decay. On that ground alone, the government's policy of water fluoridation should be referred to the Courts for resolution.

Enforce the Article 3 ban on this degrading form of 'treatment'.
Parliament has given our Courts authority to restrict the activities of paedophile, so that their attempts to violate our children can be curbed. Yet it continues to condone the Department of Health's activity that violates the absolute right of our children not to be subjected to degrading treatment.

Fluoridation condemns thousands of our children to a lifetime of rejection, social and financial disadvantage. Yet our 'Parliament of Fools' doggedly clings to the myth that this enforced and prohibited form of public medication is of such national urgency that its retention justifies the abolition of the human rights of the public.

Whilst some kids are at higher risk of dental decay, all are placed at high risk from indiscriminate fluoridation.

It is time for the Courts to decide whether this form of child abuse is indeed, like paedophilia, in gross violation of the Human Rights of our children, and if those who advocate it are, like paedophiles, unfit to be let loose in modern society.