Rights: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it mean

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog



Rights: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means

There are many things that the extreme right wingers, the bigots, the desperate conformists, whatever you want to call the people who give us all a collected headache, do that annoy me in the extreme. In fact, I couldn’t even begin to make a list because collecting so much wrongness together in one document would enrage me past reason (well, even further past reason than I like to play)

But I have to say one of their many many many habits that I find objectionable is their appropriation of the language of rights and oppression. It is grossly offensive to me to see some of the most privileged people imaginable - often the most privileged people possible - to appropriate the words of oppression and marginalisation

I’ve seen some pretty awful ones out there. There’s the use of “Christian Bashing” to appropriate the term gay-bashing. And while that may be the one that hit’s closest to me, I’ve also seen appropriation of the civil rights movement, segregation, apartheid, the holocaust - gods you name it, nothing‘s untouchable. Some people have no shame and they sure don’t have any respect.

And one of the appropriations that annoys me greatly is the appropriation of Human Rights.

I’m a lawyer. I like the law. I have a lot of respect for the law. I am genuinely and legitimately interested in my work - I love it dearly. I also have a, sometimes naive, desperate hope for the law. When I wrote about why I vote I said it was because, as a marginalised person, my well being is very dependent on government policy - and most certainly law. And definitely Rights.

The law (and most certainly its agents) is frequently - very frequently - used to abuse the marginalised. But law, and human rights particularly, are also our biggest shield against persecution.

Without Rights enshrined in law my life would be very different. In fact, there’s a very good chance I wouldn’t even be alive. More and more I am still horrified by how much people hate us, how little our lives are worth and how much so many people would cheer and fight to see my life ruined.

I like my life. It’s a good life - a damned good life. But it exists only because of the shield that Rights have given me.

Rights are important. It seems so infantile to say it that way, but people forget. People whine about them. People neglect them and people abuse them. And the latter annoys me - to twist and maul something so essential and - on a selfish note - so very necessary to me, galls me a great deal.

So, I’m in the mood to grab the haddock and do some important slapping on people who appropriate the language of human rights to try and destroy them

Rights: You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means: Religion

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog


Thought, Conscience and Religion - Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights

One of the increasing memes I’ve seen, especially as a member of the gay community, are religious groups claiming to be brutally oppressed because, well, because they can’t make me not exist. However that is hardly the first or only way in which the Right to Religion is grossly abused and twisted. From destroying the scourge of evolution, ramming gays back in the closet, to abstinence only education, to having the screaming meemies if anyone DARES say “happy holidays,” to demanding that crosses and 10 commandments be plastered on every flat surface - there is a common theme.

That their Right to Religion is somehow being violated when they are prevented from imposing the tenets of their faith on other people. That they are being somehow oppressed because they cannot force others to conform.

And this is grossly wrong. First of all, even invoking the language of oppression in these circumstances is not only wrong but it’s positively indecent. Seriously, when you make up not only the majority, but also the majority of the people in power, in all branches of government, in all branches of the judiciary, in the police forces, in the army, in the civil service, the health service - in just about every profession and every segment of power then there is a REALLY good chance that you’re not oppressed.

It is OFFENSIVE for a dominant and powerful group to claim to be marginalised and oppressed. It shows a level of privilege and cluelessness that boggles to an extreme. It also shows a gross level of entitlement as invariably such claims are actually someone whining because they can’t impose their belief on other people. It’s also pretty damn comic.


Let’s make this abundantly clear:

YOUR RIGHT TO RELIGION DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE A “RIGHT” TO FORCE OTHERS TO CONFORM WITH YOUR FAITH

That means you cannot/should not demand public bodies and institution endorse your faith and its symbols on public buildings, court rooms and in public decorations. Put up what decorations you want - but why should others decorate to your taste and faith?

That means you cannot/should not demand schools force your religion on students. You should not pressure schools to present religious belief as fact. You should not try to use schools as tools for enforcing conformity and dogma. If you wish to impose on your kids then do so (though I don’t agree) but you don’t set the standard for education.

That means you cannot/should not force IGNORANCE on those students because of the doctrines of your faith. You should not be presenting religious dogma as science. You should not be trying discard science in favour of beliefs. You should not be hurting those children, their education and their future chances by replacing learning with scripture.

That means you cannot/should not force schools to deny an entire segment of the population exists (guess what? A generation of kids not knowing a damn thing about homosexuality won’t make us disappear).

That means you should not put lives at risk by denying essential medical knowledge (and what is abstinence only education if not that? Or the oppression of contraception and abortion services). It means you shouldn’t be making people’s life and medical choices for them. Your right to religion doesn’t give you the right to control their lives, their bodies, their health or their choices.

That means you cannot/should not force people to follow YOUR winter holiday in YOUR way. People celebrate their holidays as they choose. You are not oppressed by your neighbour celebrating Hanukah or Kwanzaa. You have no right to force everyone to have a Christmas tree. You should not have a heart attack because someone presumed to say “happy holidays”

That means you cannot make religious choices for others - preventing them having medication, medical procedures, access to products, services, employment, education, housing and even other rights just because your faith disagrees. It’s their choice, not yours. You have no Right to make their decisions for them. You have no right to deny their agency, their needs or their existence.

Your right to Religion doesn’t mean you can violate other people’s rights. Your religion doesn’t justify or excuse attacking, harming, persecuting or generally screwing over other people. Shockingly, they have Rights to. And no, you don’t get special privileged Rights that are worth more.

Applying your religion to yourself and I will fight alongside you to protect your right to do so and I will demand the law protect your right to your faith. But your religion stops where I begin and you have no Right to infringe on me with your faith.



I am a religious man. My religion is important to me but, amazingly, someone else’s religion is not. The tenets of someone’s religion applies to them and (maybe) their co-religionists. When you start applying them to others it’s not about rights any more - it’s about privilege, dominance and power. And you have no Right to those.