Kevin's Political Philosophy
My approach to my political philosophy is one based on deductions, based on as few basic general assumptions as possible. This is accordance to my overall science based approach of understanding the nature of things.
Some General Principles
My overall political stance is that of a Liberal.
The State should be there for the benefit of the people, not the State.
State regulation should only be used where it is necessary.
The notion that some action may cause harm, is not sufficient, by itself, to produce any consideration whatsoever that such action should be regulated by the State.
Murder (death penalty) by the State is not an acceptable action by the State for any reason.
It is better to let 100 guilty individuals go free than to punish 1 innocent individual.
Freedom Of Association
There is nothing ethically wrong in promoting one belief system as ethically more valid than another, for example the notion that one political ideology/religion has greater ethical legitimacy than another political ideology/religion.
For example, this notion has been specifically recognized in the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006:
"29J Protection of freedom of expression
Unfortunately, there is a persistent Political Correctness that undermines the basic freedoms declared here.
Freedom Of Expression
Q: "Don't you understand that what you are saying is very offensive?"
A: "What's your point?
ISLAM IS NOT A RACE, it is a political and religious ideology in the same way way as Marxism, Capitalism, Nazism and Democracy is. Islam, has no ethical entitlement to protection from insult and ridicule just as no other idea has. Islam is not a person. Ethically equating "Islamophobia" to homophobia is fundamentally flawed. Sexual orientation is not a belief system, it is equivalent to height. Throwing gays of buildings isn't, its due to an (abhorrent) belief system.
Muhammad was a military commander that led 60 campaigns of conquest during the last years of his life.
Sharia is Islamic Law. It's about stoning to death woman for adultery, non equal rights for woman, death to those that renounce Islam, and chopping of hands and feet.
Sharia is not optional for Muslims; it is prescribed for believers (5:48). Although Muslims as individuals often decide which parts to follow or ignore, the Quran (33:21) says that it is not fitting for a believer to choose for themselves (i.e., disregard) any matter already decided by Allah.
The ECHR (European Court Of Human Rights) has declared that Sharia is incompatible (repugnant) to Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."
It stated that:
"Sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it". According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on Sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts."
The Good, Bad and Ugly
If a person cuts his elderly neighbours lawn on Saturdays, delivers meals-on-wheels Tuesdays and Thursdays, is a life guard on Wednesdays and rapes 5 year olds every other Sunday, is that person a good or a bad person?
A fundamental tenet of Islam is for all to submit to the dictates of Islam. It specifically requires the overthrow of any Democracy. It states that its principles are above any other.
Human Rights ethics and law states that freedom of expression is not protected from actions that by its very nature, if allowed, would remove that freedom of expression. This was expressed by the ECHR:
The ECHR Anual Report 2003, regarding the Refah Partisi (The welfare Party) v Turkey
"...It necessarily followed that a political party whose leaders incited to violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or which was aimed at the destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Convention’s protection against penalties imposed on those grounds..."
The principle is that basic Human Rights trump any other alleged right. Freedom of Religion, means such freedom is only allowable so far as it does not violate more fundamental freedoms. For example, the right of women to be equal in law, supercedes any religious tenet that she isn't. It is not legitimate to claim that refusing to allow Sharia is a violation of religious freedom, because such a view is fundamentally contrary to basic human rights.
© Kevin Aylward 2017
All rights reserved
Website last modified 29th November 2017