Why the Eviction of Calais Migrants Does More for Human Rights than their Retention

By Caleb R. Newton

Real human rights means law and order and specific measures to protect life.

    Starting at about the head of the month of March 2016, the thousands of migrants housed in the “self-erected” camp - also known as a “jungle”- at Calais, France, will be evicted. According to reports, the eviction process will take about three weeks, and will not affect the “places of social life,” such as mosques and youth centers.

    As is expected, the migrants and their supporters have only begun their long and violent protest at the eviction measures, handed down by a French court in the end of February. They implicitly continue the long-standing citation of true support for “human rights” necessitating the approval of the migrants and, concurrently, their Calais “jungle.”

    The attempted validation on the back of the ideal of human rights, however, along with the violent response to French police tasked with clearing Calais only shows the lack of interest on the part of the migrants and their supporters for anything other than their own freedom for self assertion at the expense of everyone else.

    The issue starts with the notion of human rights itself and the simple observation that behind ideals always hide people. Ideals do not think of themselves or sustain themselves into the future. In other words, open ended promises are really fronts for a deeper agenda, such as the infiltration and assertion of particular people within a certain society - in this case, the migrants and their Islamism and European culture.

    Furthermore, the form of this ideal of human rights that is cited by the migrants and their supporters is really of the open ended sort; in other words, this “human rights” makes for freedom for the migrants to do whatever they please. The problem is that such “rights” are not really human rights at all; instead, the only thing the zeal behind “defending the migrants” really represents is, again, the self-interest of those involved.

    Real human rights means law and order and specific measures to protect life, not open ended allowances for whatever can be dreamt up at the time. If someone or some entity threatens life, they have placed themselves outside of the protected and must be dealt with accordingly in order to prevent the breakdown of the entire society. This fact is why I support the death penalty, and it is why such a strong showing against the real threat to stability that the migrants pose to French and British society is such a good thing - it is such force that is required to protect life on all levels and has, for example, historically been woefully lacking in Western society and, more specifically, in their counterterrorism measures.

     If the migrants and their allies really cared about human rights which, theoretically at least, covers more than just their own selves, than they would not respond with violence to the eviction notice, as has occurred as the order is begun to be carried out. Such logic is the same logic behind the credit of the backing of Palestinian terrorism to the supposed Israeli occupation. Quite literally and colloquially, all I can say is, huh? So, you say that you are defending human rights and that is why you are breaking the law and threatening the safety of others? Oh, ok.

    The logic behind the “need” to accept the migrants literally does not make any sense. What does make sense is the forceful response to the migrants at Calais by the French, and such must continue for Western society, or any society, to actually productively protect the lives and safety of its citizens.

(Image [Ed.]: Calais Jungle - Yahoo News)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]