Human rights and liberties at The Guardian

I\’m not shocked but I am amazed.

So The G has reorgainsed its former Liberty Central as Human Rights and Liberties. The thing is, I can find no reference at all to economic liberty there.

Something of an ommission?

15 thoughts on “Human rights and liberties at The Guardian”

  1. Nope. The economy needs to be subjugated to wise minds such as Polly, Monbiot and Stewart Wallis, in case we choose to spend money on things that they might disapprove of.

    Just as “freedom of speech” needs to be subjugated to Bindel and Summerskill in case we talk about things they think aren’t “nice”.

    And the rest of it – we should only be free to do things the Guardian approves of. And, as sane people generally don’t agree with the prejudices of each and every twit the Guardian chooses to give a column to, our freedoms must be limited.

    Remember, some people are more equal than others. And Guardian columnists are the most equal of them all.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    Ommission? Is that a group of Tibetan monks who try to persuade you to convert to Buddhism?

    Why am I not surprised? Just as Stalin made sure murder by class was not included in the UN’s definition of genocide. By their silences ye shall know them.

  3. SMFS
    Did he really? Was Stalin scared of the UN?

    Q: How many divisions has the UN?
    A: As many as there are votes.

    Is murder by class on the list of genocides now the old brute is dead?

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    blokeinfrance – “Did he really? Was Stalin scared of the UN?”

    That is the allegation. I am not sure if he was scared of them but presumably he wanted to make sure “genocide” was something that only applied to the Nazis and anyone else Stalin did not like, not to the Soviet Union. See this link for instance:

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/september/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310.html

    All early drafts of the U.N. genocide convention included social and political groups in its definition. But one hand that wasn’t in the room guided the pen. The Soviet delegation vetoed any definition of genocide that might include the actions of its leader, Joseph Stalin. The Allies, exhausted by war, were loyal to their Soviet allies – to the detriment of subsequent generations.

    “Q: How many divisions has the UN?
    A: As many as there are votes.”

    Well presumably if he was aware of the UN vote on Korea, he would have been more cautious.

    “Is murder by class on the list of genocides now the old brute is dead?”

    I expect the academic left, that is to say, the academic world, will continue to resist the idea. But no, I don’t think it is.

  5. Wouldn’t murder by class be sociocide, or the like? I suppose you’ll tell me that “genocide” by UN definition is inconsistent with the structure of the word anyway.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    dearieme – “Wouldn’t murder by class be sociocide, or the like?”

    Would it really matter? Is it worse to be murdered because you’re a Jewish banker than because you’re a banker?

    Surreptitious Evil – ““Genus” & “cis” – to cut out or kill a family or type. It would seem to include the “murder by class”, considering the two Latin root words, at least.”

    Isn’t genocide one of those words that annoys pendants because it is half Latin and half Greek? Like Television? Genus being Greek and the -cide bit being Latin?

    This blog must have the highest concentration of Catholic educated old boys of any I know. Some of them must have had some Latin beaten into them.

  7. To live up to my name: I think SMFS is right; it’s from the Greek genos (sorry, Tim, no Greek alphabet) rather than the Latin cognate genus, because the Latin stem would give us genericide.
    It wasn’t beaten into me at least. But then I wasn’t Catholic educated.

  8. It seems to be formed from the Greek root rather than the Latin, for some reason. The Latin root would give ‘genticide’, I think.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “Hmm, the OED says that I’m wrong and SMFS is right. Oh well.”

    Well, pigs, acorns, that sort of thing.

    13Frances Coppolla – “Ah, but social liberty and economic freedom aren’t necessarily positively correlated.”

    But is the actual causation the way he seems to suggest it? I love the idea of a correlation between inflation and homophobia – because the Tories can claim any Keynesian is homophobic – but on the other hand we have a limited number of cultures to compare. Those cultures are not necessarily all that distinct. Perhaps he is only saying that the people who hate inflation, mainly northern Europeans, are also opposed to homophobia. Or more likely are more socially oriented and so tell the pollsters what they think they should say. While southern Europeans are fine with both inflation and more individualism and so are more honest? Or it has something to do with Catholicism.

    Who knows? Clearly the government needs to fund a ten-year cross-cultural research project.

  10. Two excellent posts on this subject, I thought. Chris exonerates the Guardian slightly, Rick not at all.

    But Rick is talking about equality not freedom. They are manifestly not the same thing in the economic space. In fact, I would doubt that they are correlated.

    Obviously, in the social space, as the freedoms are generally driven top down, they are much more similar – whether it is Animal Farm or Christiania.

Leave a Reply

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