After the recent much-heralded capture of the ISIS caliph, the International Criminal Court has made yet another explicably biased ruling.
The leader of the Islamic State is not eligible for prosecution in a war crimes tribunal, as this would inevitably constitute a serious breach of his human rights.
That’s right! Fresh on the heels of a Bolivian illegal immigrant having his deportation cancelled because it would have made his cat sad, the ‘right to a family life’ nonsense continues to rumbles on.
But first you need to know some background info about this colourful and flamboyant figure! Make sure you read on to find out more; and please be sure to share the story afterwards too! Can’t believe it… It’s political correctness gone mad!
So, for the benefit of those who are unaware of the life and times of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, it is important to stress that the caliph of the Islamic State, although beloved by many, is often considered a deeply controversial figure also. While some hold him high as a great and indeed definitive model of Islamic piety and true non-toxic manliness, others condemn him as a somewhat contentious figure, with views on religious tolerance, sexual diversity and gender equality that are arguably somewhat out of step with what is normally considered to be the default norm in some of the societies in our world today.
The debate rumbles on. But whatever your views on this ‘love him or hate him’ Marmite character, one thing is hard to dispute: there are a lot of people who consider him to more or less fall short of current humanitarian norms and the standard conventions of international law that are commonly accepted today.
In this spirit, some were hoping that the deposed Caliph could finally be tried at the International Criminal Court. This would have brought a splash of much-needed racial and religious diversity at the ICC, given that the ‘International Caucasian Court’ is normally considered to fall short of what some would say are the contemporary salutary programmatic ideals of multiculturalism, critical race theory, and equality of outcome.
However, it turns out that the ICC has refused, on principle, to entertain prosecuting the former self-appointed leader of global Islam.
An uncharacteristically tedious and long-winded public statement notes:
Human rights are for everyone; and not just for the righteous few.
The position of our court has been, for many years, that if you don’t believe in human rights for those who society unjustly excludes and marginalises as ‘evil’ and ‘morally deviant,’ you don’t believe in human rights for anyone at all!
That said, current enlightened humanitarian legislation does clearly state that every single human being on earth has the right to a family life.
International law makes clear that this is an inalienable and unconditional right, that every person in our world today has been born with; and not merely some arbitrary act of noblesse oblige that whimsical governments can suddenly grant, and then cruelly confiscate again, at their own good pleasure.
The International Community are unanimous in our views on this matter.
We have decided that although the Caliph of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is alleged to have committed a number of acts which are arguably not entirely in keeping with the letter of international law, we have nonetheless decided to let the spirit of the law prevail on this occasion.
The Caliph informs us that while he understands the consequences of his action are potentially very serious indeed, and that he has been a deeply problematic ally for many marginalised communities, his pretty little kitten ‘Candy Idaho Florida’ has been extremely distraught since he has been detained. Thus, while there is undoubtedly a degree of merit in the arguments of those who would wish to bring the full rigour of the law against the Caliph, we have come to the conclusion that the basic, universal, non-negotiable right to a family life trumps any petty and vindictive revenge instincts on the part of those individuals commonly referred to as the ‘victims’ of the Caliph.
While we are admittedly not by any means unaware that this decision may fall short of full acceptability among the more fastidious critics of the Caliph, we trust that the rational, moral, enlightened, and most importantly of all, the most compassionate and highminded observers will agree that basic, fundamental human rights are not to be sacrificed on the grounds of the irrational, hateful and moralistic scruples of Islamophobes, Orientalists and other despicable enemies of the Project of Our Common Humanity.
Professor Smiggles has taken the liberty of noting:
Human rights are as human rights do!
And if this be so, we can thereby, perchance, audaciously wager the following proposition without too excessively preponderant a surfeit of Daedalian hubris:
If human rights are for everyone, then this case would seem to suggest that human rights are a paradigm either broken beyond repair, or else in serious need of reform.