Frankly, I don’t know if the world was a better place before human rights, or whether things are now worse. Take a simple case of murder. Long ago when a person committed murder they would be put to death. It was straightforward.
Those who killed would be killed. Murderers knew the score. The methods of execution were no frills. Depending on which part of the world the murderer lived, there were options. For instance in certain societies the murderer would simply be buried alive. This method was quite effective because the murderer would understand just how it is to be buried. But this time still alive. The community would also gather and prove for themselves that indeed the person who killed their relative, died pleading to be spared. There is nothing as sweet as vengeance. Yet in other societies the murderer would be simply stoned to death. In communities that did not want to waste their time, the killer would be fed to the lions. My point is that in every society certain forms of punishment were exacted on miscreants. Of course, with the rise in human rights things changed. Instead of using an axe to chop off a killer’s head, it was demanded that executions be done in secret, away from the public. Up to this day I don’t believe government reports that people sentenced to death have actually been executed. Until the government allows the public and members of the murder victim’s family to witness the actual execution I remain convinced that all condemned murderers are enjoying a lifetime of nice food and drink in jail. Come to think of it, some of them could have been spirited overseas to enjoy the remainder of their lives sleeping with white women. For me it’s very simple.
In order to believe that people sentenced to death have been executed, the act should take place in public. But like I am saying it’s all because of human rights. That is why nowadays we cannot flog our kids. In the name of human rights, flogging your kid is considered child abuse. I don’t understand. If your child is badly behaved what are you expected to do? I suppose in the law of human rights you are expected to hug the kid and beg them to behave themselves. In my days, we were flogged at school. We were flogged for committing any offence you could think of. At times, we were flogged because the teacher felt in a good mood to flog a few learners. It was painful but we lived to flourish and tell the tale. On the few occasions where we had really misbehaved, our parents would be invited to come witness our flogging. The headmaster duly done, the parents would also take over to administer a few strokes on the bum. I do not recall anyone dying.
Actually a number of blokes who were subjected to parent and teacher floggings were toughened up. Many of them are now in the army or the police, protecting the very people who bleat human rights at a mere flogging. For a moment, I want the human rights people to consider who would be protecting them had our soldiers and policemen not been flogged, in days gone by, by parents and teachers. It is ridiculous. Nowadays, even criminals have to be flogged in privacy. That is because of human rights. Very soon we will be told that criminals should be locked up in jail and not be flogged. The human rights people never consider that many a criminal would prefer to be flogged rather than be locked up for months only to come out of jail and find his girlfriend blissfully in the arms of a new man. The human rights people are busybodies and want to think for us all. They never ask the criminal whether he prefers a flogging or jail. Which brings me to my point? Just recently it was announced that a law is being introduced to prevent partners beating each other up. I say beating each other up because it’s not a simple case of men beating up their wives and girlfriends. Many husbands and boyfriends also get a daily dose of slaps, stiletto blows and scratching.
Now in terms of the law being proposed it would be illegal for my wife to beat me up. It would also be illegal for me to beat up my wife. I think this is human rights gone too far. Why must couples in the privacy of their homes be told they cannot beat each other up? I am now convinced that the people behind this law are silly. They are drunk on the wine of human rights. Obviously there is a good reason why couples beat each other up. I accept it is not unacceptable for them to kill each other. But what is wrong with fighting each other now and then?
The reason I disagree with the human rights people is because some men deserve a beating for coming home late and sleeping around. To this, what do the human rights people say? I am sure they would recommend counselling. But to me a beating is far more effective than any form of counselling. Look, if my partner gave me a beating I would think twice about arriving home drunk and cheating on her. Since many of the people behind the law are women, they must also be honest and come clean on one thing. They must admit that they envy women who get beaten. Actually they are jealous. Some men beat up their women to show how much they love them. Out there I am sure there are many women who feel sad that their partners don’t love them because they never beat them up. This is because when they come home late and sleep around their husbands and boyfriends turn a blind eye. I am certain those women would stop after a beating because, clearly it would show that their partners are concerned. Before you call me a male chauvinist pig, if I too always arrived home late, slept around and my wife did not beat me up I would think she is not concerned and therefore does not love me. In equal measure neither would she think I love her if I did not beat her up for arriving home late and sleeping around. So chaps let’s beat them up to show our love!