(1) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. (2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

But this does not apply to ...  (a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention ... (b) any service of a military character  ... (d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

And what are 'normal civic obligations', eh?

Is there a list of them somewhere?

Is this list being added to?

And bearing in mind also that the citizens of western countries have nowadays to forfeit some 50% of their earnings (not some 35% as most people seem to believe e.g. see Printing Money) to pay for their governments' requirements, the word 'slavery' does not seem to be a particularly strong term to describe the way in which western governments treat their people.

Article 6: Right to a fair trial

(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Everyone is entitled to a "fair and public hearing"?

Oh really?

Then what's all this? ...

 ... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 

Huh!

So much for "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing".

It is just not true!

The large print says one thing, but the small print says something else.

(2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 

But this clearly does not apply in, for example, domestic violence or sex-assault cases, where, for all intents and purposes, men are presumed to be guilty at the outset.

And are treated as such.

Here in the UK we have had men sent to prison for sex-assault solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of one aggrieved woman; e.g. see Judges.

(3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights-

...  (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; 

So, how come that women alleging sex-assault (i.e. witnesses for the prosecution) can avoid having to give evidence and are allowed to remain anonymous while the identities of the defendants (i.e. witnesses for the defence) are made pubic? These are hardly the 'same conditions', are they?

The so-called Human Rights Act is riddled with thousands of exceptions - always in the direction of disempowering men, and always in favour of helping governments to make more successful prosecutions..

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In other words, there is, in fact, no right to privacy, because just about any activity can be said to be falling under one or more of the above exceptions.

Allowing your children to eat sweets could be interpreted as falling under many of the exceptions listed above.

For example, sweets might make children fat, or they might make them behave in a more hyperactive and, hence, more often in an aggressive manner. There is considerable evidence for both of these things.

As such, the detection and monitoring of sweet-eating might be said to be highly relevant when it comes to ...  public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In fact, just about any behaviour could be said to affect one or more of these things.

For example, it could easily be argued that having too much sex - or having sex with too many people - will affect the public safety or the economic well-being of the country and that it will also jeopardise the protection of health or morals.

The whole thing is a farce.

The goal posts are forever moveable.

It is just a game - a game that is played out interminably at our expense.

It is a game that involves forever playing around with legal-sounding words; juggling them around, twisting them, redefining them - but always with the aim of disempowering people - men mostly - bit by bit - and nourishing the governing elite without the people realising it.

It is a game in which a fortune is being spent and wasted annually on lawyers and various bureaucrats

Yes. Many 'privileged' groups outside of government - such as women and gays - also benefit very handsomely in the short term by all these shenanigans. But, basically, these privileged groups are little more than conduits through which the powers-that-be can justify further incursions into the lives and the wallets of people - often by claiming that they are protecting them in some way from the activities and desires of nasty heterosexual men.

And, of course, the nastier that they can portray such men to be, the more funding and power for themselves do they manage to justify.

Indeed, simply judging by the change in the overall tax rates and the non-tax measures with which citizens are nowadays forced to comply (e.g. see the second section in Printing Money) western governments have gained some 50 times more power over their citizens than they had only 100 years ago.

And they continue to grow at an alarming rate.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

How they have the nerve to call these things 'freedoms' when there are so many flexible and arbitrary restrictions to them gives some indication of the true extent of the deceit involved in the creation of the so-called Human Rights Act.

Article 12: Marriage and the family

Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Yeah. Sure.

But, of course, no western man has the right to hold on to his family once he has acquired one! This so-called right to family life that men are supposed to have can be dismissed at any time by any woman wanting a divorce.

For any reason!

An example: ...

Torn Apart When Jon and his wife Teresa split up after several years of marriage, he naively assumed he would be granted fair access to their son. Not only did he lose custody, but he had to stand by and watch as the law allowed his ex-wife to take their child to live on the other side of the world. Philip Watson - major piece in the Telegraph - 8 min

Just five months after they had set up home, Jon was made redundant. Teresa found working from home harder than she had expected and, according to Jon, complained that she was becoming a boring housewife. Sometime later that year, according to evidence Jon later presented in court, Teresa began an affair. After being married for less than three years and with Toby having just turned two, she moved out, saying that she and Jon were not getting on and she needed more space. She moved into a rented flat nearby with Toby, and told Jon that he could visit at any time and have his son every weekend.

In other words, once again, we can see that this fine-sounding notion is nothing more than a con-trick by Euro-politicians who are desperately trying to garner public support for their European-wide bureaucratic enterprise by pretending to guarantee certain rights to people.

These frauds are not guaranteeing people's rights at all. 

Piece by piece, they are taking them away.

Article 14: Discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

What. A. Joke.

The reality is that white heterosexual men are discriminated against with impunity. And one spurious justification commonly given for this is 'to redress historical imbalances'.

Western governments are parasites on men.

They restrict them, demonise them, tax them, impose burdens on them and discriminate against them. And they damage them in very many serious ways.

The Human Rights Act is a con trick. It is a mechanism for tricking Europeans into believing that the judges in the European courts have the people's interests at heart. But they do not. And if you look at their decisions you will see that they are in full support of the socialist/feminist agenda.

The aim of the European judges is to break down countries, to disempower the people, and to suck the power thereby stolen up to themselves.

...

Men Have No Right To A Family A mother who had a child after a one-night stand with a work colleague won the right yesterday to keep the birth a secret from the father.

Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of his [the father's] rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no right to be violated.

Corrupt EU Politicians The one thing the EU hates is transparency and accountability in its dealings ... and there is the immunity legislation introduced to render all EU officers and representatives above the law and unaccountable to the public they are supposed to represent. Campaign For Truth In Europe