Violating Rights in the Name of Safety?

Human-rights-violations

We all have rights.   Many of those rights are violated today under the guise of “for your safety” or for “public safety”.      Like the era of Hitler when he came into power, pro police and pro authority supporters encourage this.    They praise police when they very obviously have broken the law or violated someone’s individual human rights.
Today I read a very vague article in my local newspaper, that lead me to believe the person mentioned in it had her rights violated.   Which of course prompted a heated debate as I seemed to be the only one who recognized this.

Here is the article:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6470583-drunk-woman-spits-in-police-officer-s-face-at-hamilton-hospital/

Now, after reading the article it does not say why she was in the hospital or why she was angry.     So we can only speculate.    I am someone who presumes innocence until proven guilty, so I will presume she is innocent of any crime.

Which leaves only a few reasons for her to act this way.  The most logical and basic is that she was forced there against her will, got angry and spit on the cop.   Who then proceeded to charge her for getting a little wet.

The comment section heated on social media when I mentioned that her rights had most likely been violated by the cops, the medical professions and possibly the paramedics if they used them.

This caused a stir.   People stood up and commented that the cops was assaulted, but really were they?

If you are taken against your will to someplace you didn’t want to go, just because you were drunk, isn’t that kidnapping?   I would think so.  In fact the Legal definition of kidnapping is:

Kidnapping

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

This is what they did. That is again assuming that she didn’t want to go and didn’t commit any crimes while drunk.

Many would say that it was for her safety and that makes it right.     Actually no it doesn’t.  The only person who can make that decision is the person in question.    The only time that doesn’t apply is when they are unable to due to mental illness or they are unconscious.

In the 90s, I lived in BC and at that time there was a serious heroin problem.  100% pure heroin was being sold on the streets and anyone who would inject themselves with it would overdose and die within 3o minutes.   This was such a major problem that they had paramedics driving ambulances in the alleys and looking for unconscious drug addicts.

When they found a conscious drug user, they would offer help, and if they person said no they legally could not do anything.    If that happened they would wait until that person lost consciousness and then act.

When I asked the  authorities about that, they said that by law they cannot force a medical treatment against someone’s will unless they were unable to make that decision themselves.   That is to me the right thing to do.

Now back to the woman in the article, if she was drunk and they transported her to the hospital and she refused medical treatment, then forcing her to have it would have made the medical staff at fault.  And the police trying to “deescalate” the situation would not have made it any better.     No means no.     And since the police in this age are not known to be gentle or nice , we can only assume their idea of deescalate was to use force on her to hold her down.   To which the only thing the woman could do to defend herself would be to spit on the cop.

Some paramedics piped up and stated they deal with drunk people all the time who don’t want help and have to “deal” with the violence all the time.  Same with some nurses at the hospitals.     Here is my message you to and to any of these people who think they are helping someone.   “NO MEANS NO.”  Drunk or sober, you do not have the right to force a medical treatment, force someone to go somewhere, without their consent or against their will.   NEVER!   If they attack you in anyway it is within their right to defend themselves because regardless of your intent, you are violating their rights and attacking them”.

Can people understand this?    If a drunk driver is held accountable for their actions of getting in the vehicle and driving while drunk then they have the ability to say no to unwanted help.    If you violate this and take them to a hospital and try to perform a medical procedure, any medical procedure then you are at fault and not the drunk person.

Pass this on and share this.   The more people that get educated on rights, then maybe we can fix this from happening to others.

 

 

Feminism is becoming a Cult…

women-rights

We are now seeing generations of people coming out of our education system, less educated, and less able to think critically than when they went in.   As a result, we are seeing these same people deny the definition of words that are listed in dictionaries and going with their own.     Case in point, is when you point out the dictionary definition of feminism to someone, and they say “well that’s YOUR definition.  My definition is …..”.

This is the idiocy that I am speaking of.    It has gotten so bad that these people cannot even think critically about what they are even saying, and follow the cult mentality of the ideology.

Here is a comparison of a religion, to feminism.

Religion have a god and a devil.

Feminism has well, Feminism and he evil Patriarchy.

Religion has the oppressed and the oppressors.

Feminism has the ever victims called Women and Men are oppressing them.  Even male babies and men who die protecting them.

Religion has an ideology that has a list of sins.

Feminism has this too.   Women are sinners if they support men who don’t follow feminism, who decide to be housewives, etc.

Men are born in sin.   Are all potential rapists and aggressors.

Religion has a persecution complex.

So does feminism.   Patriarchy keeps women down!

Religion has a Pope!

Feminism has Justin Trudeau! (Irony)

The comparisons can go on and on.    The current feminist pope… I mean mouthpiece,  recently proclaimed that Liberals should be considered a movement, and not a political party.     He is blurring the lines purposely.   He wants people to start thinking of the liberal party as a movement because this way it makes it easier for the feminist movement to control it more openly instead of via puppet strings.

We need to stop this and shout it down.  Everywhere, and every-time we see it.     We may not all agree on political topics, but identity politics should not be part of government.    I can vividly see a future where men are forced to sit to pee and getting angry at a woman or speaking against a woman becomes a crime if these people continue and have their way.

Keep fighting for freedom people.   Liberals/Feminism is not freedom, but a cage.