Global turn-around: to persuade Western Powers to adopt ‘bottom-up’ ethical human rights.
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
The likely visit to New Zealand of some of world’s most powerful Western countries provides an opportunity to persuade them to adopt an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (global ethical human rights) which was developed in this country.
It would mean a global ‘turn-around’. Global ethical human rights, which is a ‘bottom-up’ approach, would replace ‘neoliberal absolutism’ which I see as involving a ‘near absolute’ ‘top-down’ control created at the UN on 10 December 2008.
I regard neoliberal absolutism was a consequence of the whole UDHR, which emphasizes individual rights, being made compatible with IMF globalization policies which focus on elites.
And this means all aspects of human behavior covered under the declaration will be subjected to an almost fanatical ‘top-down’ control.
Also, in my view, but to my knowledge not made public, neoliberal absolutism resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to other regions leading to a ‘permanent’ Western decline – and I consider this would have been the major cause of the 2009 global financial crash.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has invited New Zealand to take part in the G20 summit in Brisbane on November 15 and 16, 2014, as an ‘unofficial member of the club’.
And the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, has invited US President Barack Obama, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and the prime ministers of Britain, Canada and France to visit New Zealand before or after the summit (‘We are heading for an early election’, MSN New Zealand News, AAP, 28 Feb, 2014, http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8807054/were-heading-for-an-early-election
This article also contains comments by independent human rights professionals on my recent article, ‘’Reason Lost’ at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working’ (Aotearoa Indymedia, 28 Jan 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1956
The latter article describes how ‘neoliberal absolutism’ is now to be backed by large police forces in numerous countries and possibly eventually all.
I consider the present ‘near absolute’ control seeks to eliminate independent thinkers and consequently what remains of traditional Western liberties are under very serious threat.
While liberals emphasize individual rights neoliberals greatly prioritize the collective and, in fact, seek to purge itself of the independent thinkers from within their own ranks and from society and the world.
In my view, such independent thinkers are seen as a threat to the carefully concealed hegemony of descent-based bureaucratic elites concerned to perpetuate the interests of their class and manipulate the UDHR to do so (see above article, ‘‘Reason Lost’ at UN….’).
The Western countries invited to visit New Zealand are all members of the G8 – the Major Advanced Economies which after the European Union were affected most by the 2009 global financial crisis (see below). France and Germany are also members of the EU, which was the epicenter of the crisis.
I have been promoting the ethical approach in New Zealand most particularly since 2008 (although the idea began to develop in early 2004) when my book (cited below) outlined this approach to replace neoliberalism. While the latter is fanatically adhered to the ethical approach has been slowly gaining increasing support, some high profile, in the country.
For instance, Bryan Gould, one of New Zealand’s top academics, and Companion of the NZ Order of Merit, who stood for the leadership of the UK Labour Party in 1992 I have found very supportive and also David Cunliffe, present leader of the opposition NZ Labour Party, was supportive of the ethical emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development as well as five MPs plus one former MP heading the Labour Party organization on my linkedin (also see ‘’Reason Lost’ at UN…).
I consider the ethical approach is the proper interpretation of the UDHR and, to my knowledge, no one has ever disputed this during the past 5 years when it has been constantly promoted although very largely only on the internet as it is virtually banned from the mainstream media.
Chapter 5 of my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books 2008), and later to be recommended on the UN website, followed the discussions from 2004 to 2008 on the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
When the OP was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008 I consider ‘neoliberal absolutism’ was effectively created (its entry into international law being a foregone conclusion).
America opposed the OP throughout the fours years of discussions while Australia, Canada, Britain, and other members of the ‘America camp’ were resistant (see ch5 of my book, cited above).
The Statistical Data from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2012, starkly show that the crisis, while affecting all, favored other regions, particularly Developing Asia (including China and India) over the West:
The 2009 crash majorly affected the European Union, -4.2 Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Major Advanced Economies (G7), -4.0 GDP, far more so than Developing Asia (including China), +7.1 GDP.
Also when comparing the periods 2002-8 and 2009-12 the average GDP of the European Union decreased by 106.8% from the former to the latter period, the Major Advanced Economies (G7) decreased by 74.3% while Developing Asia only decreased by 10.5%. So relatively speaking, Developing Asia was far less affected by the crash than the West where it also signals a virtually ‘permanent’ drop in living standards [the G7 is Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States but Russia has now been added to make it the G8] (Global Finance, World’s GDP Growth by Region, http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11854-worlds-gdp-growth-by-region.html#axzz2DwYoIqCE
.In a special addition of ILO’s ‘Global Employment Trends’ report for 2013 following a ‘resurgence in the crisis discussed unemployment as a whole increasing by 4 million in 2012.
In the Executive Summary it states: “The epicenter of the crisis have been the advanced economies accounting for over half of the total increase in unemployment of 28 million since the onset of the crisis” (‘Global Employment Trends 2013’, ILO, 2013, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_202326.pdf
While the increasing economic dominance of Developing Asia is well-known the global establishment continues to refuse to admit the global rebalance of ideological power from the West to other regions which would mean the West’s economic decline would be of a ‘permanent’ nature while its global influence will decline.
However, my view has gone unchallenged despite being posted on about 47 different discussion groups of human rights professionals on linkedin, a social networking site mainly for professionals.
In fact, the comments on and the ‘likes’, although modest in number but I consider ‘brave’ given its very controversial content, for the many articles I have posted suggest tacit agreement with me. Also my profile on linkedin rates me as ‘expert’ and I have been a ‘top contributor’ in various discussion groups about four times.
The most avid promoters of the UN’s ‘neoliberal absolutism’ are the global human rights establishment, many academics and much left-neoliberal politics yet it would be expected that academics, in particular, would want to uphold individual freedom of thought but this seeming contradiction is not new in history.
George Orwell (1946) in his article, ‘The Prevention of Literature’, explains that ‘a bought mind is a spoiled mind’. And he added:
“But what is sinister… is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves”.
The OP was open for signature on 24 September 2009. So far there have been 45 signatories and 12 ratifications. After 10 States ratifications the OP entered into force under international human rights law on 5 May 2013.
None of the above Western powers have ratified it and of them only France has signed it. (UN Treaty Collection Status as at 3 March, 2014 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en
Also it seems unlikely that New Zealand will ratify the OP. An email from the then New Zealand Human Rights Commissioner, Rosslyn Noonan, stated: ‘It is highly unlikely that the current government (or even the previous one) would ratify it’ (email, 12 April, 2009)
The present situation of ‘top-down’ versus ‘bottom-up’ approaches to human rights could be likened to that in the 16th Century when Martin Luther, a German monk, challenged the authority of the Pope in Rome which led to the Protestant Reformation.
Luther’s was a ‘bottom-up’ approach considering that people had their own conscience and could interpret the Bible for themselves and he translated the Bible into German.
Although the UDHR is meant for all, human rights is elitist with few countries prepared to educate their people in human rights and the poor, who could fight for global ethical human rights, are invariably excluded from having a voice of their own in the mainstream media (see ch1 of my book, cited above).
But any indication by the above Western powers that they will claim the right to self-determination reject the UN’s political human rights agenda and IMF’s elitist policies and fight for global ethical human rights could likely to see a ‘turn-around’ – from ‘top-down’ to emphasizing ‘bottom-up - happen remarkably quickly.
This would mean leaderships chosen on merit rather than on the basis of class who I regard as largely parasitic on the rest of humanity.
The following includes some comments made by independent human rights professionals on my recent article, ''Reason Lost' at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working'.
The above article describes what certainly seems to be a One World Government initiative by the UN. It was retweeted to 63,567 followers including to 57,500 followers of Albert Jack, best selling author from the UK, whose latest book is called , 'Last Man in London and The New World Order'.
The tweet (expanded) was : "Helen Clark, Head of the United Nations Development Program, tipped as next UN Secretary-General (UK Guardian 27/1/14) - see her One World Government initiative - greater police, rule of law etc., 100 countries in last 10m" [Helen Clark was Prime Minister of New Zealand for nine years just prior to being chosen to head the United Nations Development Program].
If what I am describing seems surreal its most likely because I see we are entering the domain of global authoritarianism with its violent connotations.
Such authoritarianism involves the ‘near absolute’ ‘top-down’ control of ‘neoliberal absolutism’ with the backing of larger police forces which I consider aims for virtual complete ideological capture of the independent sector.
The above article also describes it as macabre the idea that peace can be achieved by crushing the human spirit and potential (in my personal opinion this is EVIL) which I see as being a consequence of the extreme ‘top-down’ control of neoliberalism which has now morphed into an even more extreme ‘top-down’ control, ‘neoliberal absolutism’.
The above article also describes the creation of a global slave economy because the OP would have been expected to protect against exploitation but it failed to do so consequently there would be nothing standing in the way of Corporations relocating to countries with cheaper labor.
In addition, the article describes how the independent peoples are kept ignorant of many important human rights truths so there would be no peaceful escape from the slave economy.
And also from my experience of many unsuccessful attempts to have left-neoliberals enter into open public debate I have found, without exception so far, that they will only debate within the safety of an ideologically captured establishment or very controlled public meetings.
I cannot take seriously those who do not have sufficient courage of their convictions to have such face-to-face open public discussions especially when it involves a plan for the future of humanity.
The following are some comments made on linkedin regarding the above article, ‘’Reason Lost’ at UN…’ followed by some of my posts on the social networking sites giving a global ethical human rights perspective.
The comments are:
Landis Lafreuge, Human Rights Technologist, Bell, California, stated:
“It looks like once-removed authoritarianism? Good article and thanks!
Dino Manalis, Political Organization Professional, New Jersey, stated:
“No to authoritarianism but yes to order and stability to make significant economic, political and social progress possible”.
Camila Ferrari, Human Rights and Development Professional, Sao Paulo Area, Brazil, states:
“Thank you very much for your message. For sure it is very important and your article goes straight to the point. Maybe we can start an online campaign? Very looking forward to hearing from you.
Rob Branch-Dasch, CEO at Pinyon Springs, Portland, Oregon, Civic and Social Organization stated on Free Tibet:
“Anthony, I understand your frustration; I would also like to see the United Nations stand behind the resolution for Tibet that its government in exile has proposed. Before being either discouraged or encouraged, it is important to set expectations of the United Nations in a realistic perspective.
“The UN has not one political agenda, but at least 193 of them - that is, one political agenda for every member nation. This will sway left or right depending on each issue, and the definitions of "left" and "right" depend on the perspective of each member nation. Each can vary widely - what is left or right in one country may not be in another.
The government of almost any nation has a difficult time reaching consensus on most issues. Put 193 governments in a single room, and I'm surprised they can agree on what time it is. If legislation and eventual actions seem "watered down" after debate in one country, imagine how it ends up after being debated by 193 countries.
This is not to say that the UN is ineffective. Despite the diplomats and other political appointees with their largely economic agendas, there are tens of thousands of subject matter experts employed by the UN and its agencies who care very deeply about their work and who do an outstanding job. That work is available to all and emulated by individuals, communities, and member states. It is only when their research gets handed over to 193 government-appointed diplomats for debate, rewording, and action planning that the sharp edges become dulled. Agriculture (FAO), millennium goals (UNDP), and climate change (UNEP) are brilliant examples of great work stifled by government diplomats supporting their countries' corporations rather than the world's people.
Despite the fact that you and I support the Tibetan people, our governments are economically reliant on their suppressors. This means that UN diplomats appointed by our governments will not step forward the way we would like. This means it is up to us. Rather than wait for the UN to take action, it is up to us to remove the obstacles to our governments' inaction. The economic pressure on our governments is enormous, but ultimately that pressure comes from consumers - it comes from us. This gives us great power; it means that we can impact corporations, and by doing so can impact the politicians who clearly promote corporate interests. Boycott Chinese-made goods, and make it clear why you do so. Write to corporations, newspapers, television and radio stations, social media. By impacting how and why the people around you buy things, you sway the economy. By swaying the economy, you sway politics. This is one example of our power as individuals to help the Tibetan people.
Note: It's important to remember that just as we do not support all the actions of our own governments, that there are undoubtedly many Chinese people who do not support their government's actions in Tibet. Though we have this view in common, withdrawing our economic support of their country will impact their families. This is unfortunate. It is important to proceed mindfully”.
The following are some of my posts and discussions which give a global ethical human rights perspective (a description of global ethical human rights is at the end):
Catherine Hislop is Community Press officer at Community Press, Coventry, UK, and works for Global Unity Harmony Foundation and Women’s Global Justice Group.
She posted a friend’s photograph – two women with serial numbers on their arms. It stated: ‘This is my grandmother and her sister. They made it through two ghettos, Bergen-Belsen, and Auschwitz before being liberated’.
anthony ravlich People are not numbers but, in my view, this is very definitely the trajectory we are on, and it is happening. However, at the same time, I think things are improving in the sense that we are unlikely to revisit the worst extremes of history because some have learned from it and will see it for the EVIL it is. Ethical human rights reflects both the universality and individual emphasis in the UDHR (ethical development and ethical globalization follow logically-same emphasis). At present my work shows that the UDHR has been made compatible with IMF globalization policies [which] are elitist. I consider this has resulted in 'near absolute' top-down control which requires 'people as numbers'.
Catherine Hislop But the pendulum will swing anthony r
anthony ravlich Yes but ethical human rights is meant to ensure that such a pendulum will never again result in the crushing of the human spirit and potential. I see Catherine H. you are involved in women's rights which I regard as human rights. In my opinion, many women have been used by descent-based bureaucrats, who are unlikely to share an emotion between them (although there would be rare exceptions), to further their class interests. Also, in my view, the UDHR has been used by them in the same way. I do not regard them as intelligent - just a low cunning when it comes to control - because this time around they have been unsuccessful in hiding their hegemony.
Catherine Hislop not just women….for all
anthony ravlich Yes, the same in terms of obedience to ideology. For 30 years particularly ‘middle class’ professional women have had affirmative action really meant for, in my view, women most discriminated against often at the bottom of the social scale.
Art 25(2) UDHR states: ‘Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance’ which supports my view that the sexes are equal but different.
In my view, women were used to make the policies of gross neglect, including the children, look far better than they were.
Also different as an outsider, 30 years obsessive search for truth and a new plan for the world has led me to the strong view that pregnancy would prevent women from doing this.
Nicholas McNamara, Journeyman at McNamara Stout Industries, New South Wales, Australia (he is formerly from New Zealand) set up a Facebook page which he describes as ‘Mental Illness for Dummies’. He asked for my view of it. I stated:
This site by making people more aware of mental illness is likely to reduce people's fear of it. This is very important for those having to carry the burden of stigma where often the only way to change people's view of you is to achieve something so remarkable that people overlook your history of mental illness.
And that's extremely difficult to do in societies where it has become so very difficult to better oneself (whereas I see it as natural to want to reach one's full potential and also important to provide a better future for the children) - our societies would far rather 'put the person down' than lift him/her up to be 'the best he/she could be'. They are extremely negative societies.
Also, in our societies an overwhelming conformity is required to fulfill the State agenda (the State wants to eliminate dissent to the status quo and protect their positions) - those who 'rock the boat' can be quickly isolated and I consider isolation is a major cause of mental illness. Those, I see as most susceptible are the independent thinkers (often the 'best and brightest) - 'unsafe' thoughts can be crippling.
Our States see extreme 'top-down' control as necessary to crush the human spirit and potential to create 'sheep' which they see as necessary to achieve peaceful societies. In fact, in my opinion, this is plain EVIL and will simply create dangerous States which are no longer held to account and create societies where the growth of human knowledge will cease (the nil to minus GDP growth of States in the EU seem indicative of this). This I consider exceedingly short sighted because humanity may one day have to live on other planets for its own survival - the growth of knowledge is extremely important, in my view.
A public facing such extreme negativity are often too tired to resist and come to accept their dependency and inability to help themselves. This encourages the State to be even more draconian in its elimination of individual rights, most particularly individual freedoms. But in my view we were born free (see the animal kingdom) and this constitutes our basic nature - so is it any wonder we get high levels of mental illness when subjected to extreme 'top-down' control - its not natural for us to be 'robots'.
A far more positive plan is the global ethical human rights I have been promoting since 2008 - rather than crushing potential it allows the individual (and therefore the State and the world) to reach their full potential while also being socially responsible. Everyone one is ensured a core minimum of the rights in the UDHR - higher levels need to be earned. But it leads to an ethical development which emphasizes greater opportunities for small economic and social entrepreneurs to set up businesses and create jobs.
Ethical human rights means all States must adhere to an ethical human rights 'bottom-line' which means fair competition without exploitation i.e. States such as China and India will not be able to use exploitation as a means of achieving growth but rather will need to be creative which, of course, requires individual rights (both individual freedoms and individual economic and social rights) so independent minds can forge new paths into the future. Many States prefer exploitation because it involves no threat to the status quo.
We need to fight to have global ethical human rights in domestic and international human rights law.
Unfortunately those with mental illness have to go through the long - seemingly never-ending - path to recovery. My advice (because I've been there) is to hang in there but, perhaps, try to achieve something worthwhile as well.
And, in my view, be very wary of blaming yourself for anything - we are often our worst judges - invariably all you had, at most, was a very diminished responsibility. Rather our States have an enormous amount to answer for - and its no good them saying that the rest of the world is doing it - if our leaders do not have the guts to do what's right then they shouldn't be in their jobs. See beyond power, money social status, image - rather I consider its truth and character which really counts in the end especially when things go belly-up.
And that's when the 'so-called' mentally ill will come to the fore because they unlike much of society which blames others have had the courage to look at themselves and that takes character and greater respect for truth.
It takes, in my view, 'a warrior within and without' to create a great world rather that what we now have which I consider is less than mediocre and getting worse.
Nicholas G. McNamara that's a lot of food for thought, and I agree with you that the challenges of mental illness does force a deep amount of self realization.
There's always hope though, and maybe I can't tackle the problem at a State level, but if I can have some effect on the grass roots population in a positive way I'll be a happy man.
We are born free
I posted the following on the social networking sites:
‘We are born free’ – it’s our basic nature, in my view. While I considered myself intellectually free, and pursued what I wanted to do I found there is a deeper feeling of freedom after having been convinced that humans and animals are born free after watching a favorite song of mine, ‘Born Free’ by Matt Monro the theme song of the movie ‘Born Free’, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb2Awn_dYTs
According to Wikipedia 'Born Free' is a 1966 British drama film starring Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers as Joy and George Adamson, a real-life couple who raised Elsa the Lioness, an orphaned lion cub, to adulthood, and released her into the wilderness of Kenya
Rousseau (Genevan philosopher, 18th century) stated: ‘Man is born free…but everywhere he is in chains’. In those days I think that also meant woman are born free as well. Given that freedom is our basic nature you can imagine what it does to us (and perhaps also what it does to animals) when we are subjected to the ‘near absolute’ control which I describe that exists under ‘neoliberal absolutism’, the world’s, by far, dominant ideology (you could say its the global and State ‘rules of the game’ which must be obeyed but talked little about - the IMF is involved so it also involves the money).
In my view, and putting it simply, we become ‘robot-like’, often bored and give up on trying to 'better oneself so there is little future for the children. Because at the top its about 'power games' this replicates throughout society (i.e. blaming others without also looking at oneself) and relationships breakdown, there is little authenticity – it becomes all about image (money, power, social status or mana) while truth becomes virtually irrelevant – independent thinkers are often hated with a vengeance.
In the ultimate, this means a world in darkness and everyone ‘in chains’ with no plan to set us free. But, as I have stated many times, there is a plan – global ethical human rights. The question is how much will people have to endure before they decide to choose freedom i.e. truth, in my view, is often the last thing people want to face e.g. in virtually any State it is often extremely difficult, in my view, to face the truth about its 'sacred cows'.
Karen McNicholl (from New Zealand) The bible says we are born with free will so surely that means free from interference from dictators?
Anthony Ravlich Some control is necessary, for example, to ensure laws are kept but when the control or the rule of law serves the purpose of elites (as I consider is presently the case) or dictators that we must challenge it e.g. expose it as fraudulent.
(PS. When I say the rule of law I am talking about human rights law, which I consider is ‘constitutional’ and constitutes the ideology of the State. I am not referring to ‘ordinary’ criminal and civil law).
We were born to be great
My comment to a discussion started by Paul Rees from New Zealand on Facebook. I stated:
In my view, we were born to be great. But we were also born free to choose so we can choose between mediocrity (prepared to live with huge injustice) or greatness. I am seeing a world that is less than mediocre and getting worse.
It must be, in my view, a great world, see my article, 'A Great World can be achieved by Great States ensuring global ethical human rights'.
While I do not expect people with little knowledge of human rights to do much speaking out (and endure the vindictive hatred directed at independent thinkers) although there are other ways of expressing oneself - I see a particular need for direct help to be provided for 'out of it' distraught women, seemingly anti-establishment, who end up on the streets, see full discussion http://lnkd.in/bZ9ZXxH
(PS. Greatness at the individual level might be described as when you become ‘the best you can be’).
My response to a quote by the Dalai Lama on linkedin. It stated: "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them at least don't hurt them'.
My comment was : While it is hard to admit one's not perfect it is extremely deceitful - and causes immense harm - when the leadership of human rights claim the authority of the UDHR yet politicize it the point of absurdity. Such deceit, including those who collude with such deceit, cause immense harm to the world's 7 billion people many of whom e.g. the lost generation of youth, may see their ill-treatment as somehow justified but it also seriously threatens the UDHR itself and future generations when people decide to turn to other belief systems to seek justice.
My response to Kors van Es, a fund-raiser on linkedin, who started a discussion on the topic, "A man who beats up a woman is a coward who has no respect for people and certainly not for themselves". A photo depicting such violence was included.
My comment is:
I am no expert in personal relationships but it seems to me our societies are about power games not the development of character. Is it surprising that our societies create control freaks when they are run by control freaks?
Helen Clark not competent to be UN Secretary-General
I wrote a comment on Matthew Tukaki’s article on linkedin, 'Helen Clark the next UN Secretary-General?' http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Helen-Clarke-next-UN-Secretary-6500592.S.5833744870321184771?qid=1de01921-8979-4f1c-a87e-0808002f0165&trk=groups_most_recent-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmr_6500592
Matthew Tukaki is Chairperson and Chief Entrepreneur at EntreHub.org.
My comment is:
The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights is directly responsible to the UN Secretary-General. As a human rights author and activist from New Zealand where Helen Clark was Prime Minister for nine years , in my opinion, she is seriously lacking in understanding of the human condition to be in such an influential position with respect to human rights - I consider it is well beyond her competence - if there is any doubt about this see my recent article that I posted on many human rights linkedin sites, 'Reason Lost' at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working'
(Further to the above, I could have perhaps added something positive because I am aware of a number she helped while PM and she still seems to retain a significant loyal following in NZ).
‘Have your say: Why does justice matter to you?’ asks UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, on his linkedin site. My comment is as follows:
Don't you do harm when the universal declaration of human rights is made compatible with IMF policies which do virtually the opposite to what is intended by the declaration i.e. to protect individual rights.
Duties to the community in the declaration are required by all i.e. not just social responsibility by the Corporations but also the bureaucrats at the UN and in States have a duty under the UN Charter to uphold the UDHR. For instance, in my view, the UN should ensure that they do not permit such 'wide margin of appreciation' in human rights instruments so States can do [virtually] the opposite which I found to be the case with the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see ch5 of my book, 'Freedom from our social prisons....' (Lexington Books). While, in my view, States should have the courage to claim their right to self-determination when the UN fails to uphold the UDHR. .
(In addition to the above. Whereas the UDHR emphasizes individuals IMF globalization policies emphasize elites and my work shows, see ch5 of my book cited above, the former is made compatible to the latter. When this is pointed out to the UN it is simply ignored and they refuse to debate the subject).
My recent letter to President Obama,
I am a human rights author and activist from Auckland, New Zealand, with a new human rights plan for the world, one which emphasizes individual rights (freedoms and economic and social rights). I regard President Franklin Roosevelt as being perhaps one of the world's greatest leaders.
I have spent about 30 years seeking truth and remain connected with an 'inner wisdom' which also gave me sufficient detachment to do my work even under terrible circumstances.
Also see my latest article below. The plan is an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization. Simply put, ethical human rights would ensure all have, at the very least, the core minimums of the rights in the UDHR (higher levels need to be earned). Both ethical human rights and the UDHR are universal and emphasize individual rights and an ethical development (emphasizes 'bottom-up' development) and an ethical globalization (an ethical human rights 'bottom-line' for all States means fair competition without exploitation) follow logically in the same vein.
I am hoping that those countries which still have some respect for individual rights will assert their right to self-determination and reject the UN's political human rights agenda and also the policies of the IMF and instead fight for the new plan.
But is there presently a State which has such courage? America traditionally has fought for individual rights but made a big mistake, in my view, in rejecting Roosevelt's second bill of rights. However, perhaps Germany, having learned from and suffered much for past mistakes, may be a country least likely to capitulate to evil.
(The above included a link to my recent article, ''Reason Lost' at UN which crosses line to authoritarianism and its not working').
The Logic and Positivity of ethical human rights, development and globalization (in brief, global ethical human rights).
An ethical human rights requires the core minimum (at least) of all the rights in Universal Declaration of Human Rights sufficient for individuals (State and World) to reach full potential while being socially responsible. The core minimums are ensured but higher levels of rights need to be earned. The rest follows logically from the former’s emphasis on the individual.
Ethical development, emphasizes from the ‘bottom-up’ e.g. small social and economic entrepreneurs, which is most likely to greatly increase employment.
And an ethical globalization, with all States now having an ethical human rights ‘bottom-line’, means fair competition without exploitation.
I see the major form of discrimination to overcome in today’s world is social class discrimination – the real purpose of which, as with racism and sexism, is to induce mass conformity to eliminate dissent (usually the brightest) to ensure mediocrity as well as creating enormous negativity to eliminate hope. The latter ensures near complete obedience to the dominant elite, often seen as ‘sacred cows’ i.e. a left-neoliberal ‘middle-class’ elite leadership, who I consider just use human rights to further their class interests. I see the later as elitist who consider the collective as far more important than the individual. I consider this is far removed from, for example, Labour Parties and the left-liberals/socialists who emphasized individuals prior to the onset of neoliberalism in 1984.
Further Description of global ethical human rights:
Ethical human rights entails both ‘survival with dignity’ PLUS ‘the added dignity of self-help’ (including a voice in the mainstream, without any discrimination). This would be sufficient for the individual (and consequently the State and the World) to reach his/her full potential. The core minimum rights are ensured but higher levels need to be earned.
Both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ are encapsulated in Article 22, UDHR, which states: “Everyone has the right to social security and is entitled to realization…..of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensible for his dignity and the free development of his personality”.
I see the major forms of discrimination in today’s world are social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (wealth) but the latter is seen as stemming from the former.
The principle involved is the equal status of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights at the level of the core minimum obligations of the State.
(2) There is an emphasis on an ethical ‘bottom-up’ development e.g. small social/ economic entrepreneurs, small/medium business, and new, original ideas to forge new paths into the future with such development of human knowledge (e.g. space travel may be necessary for human survival) to be based on the individual rather than determined ‘top-down’. This would, in my view, mean far greater employment.
An emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development is seen to follow logically from the emphasis on individual rights of the UDHR and the ethical approach. For example, Article 2(1) of the Declaration on the Rights to Development describes ‘bottom-up’ development: “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the rights to development”.
Affirmative action can then be applied where, in my view, it is meant to - those who suffered the worst discrimination which includes those 'tall poppies' excluded by the establishment and who, in my experience, were treated just as badly. Many of the latter would likely employ the others.
(3) An ethical human rights establishes an ethical human rights ‘bottom-line’. An ethical globalization is seen to follow logically as it would mean an ethical human rights 'bottom-line' for all States - to protect against extreme ‘top-down’ control by the State as well as ensuring fair competition without exploitation (e.g. China and India would not get an unfair competitive advantage by exploiting their workforce). Ethical globalization does not require regionalization so States do not have to forgo considerable national sovereignty.
This is not a return to protectionism. For example, people can be informed e.g. labeling of goods, where imports are made, for example, with child or sweatshop labour. As well as ensuring no such exploitation takes place it provides opportunities for domestic production.
(4) There are also duties. Article 29(1) states: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible” i.e. all have duties including groups and associations, the Corporations, the mainstream media, public bodies including Academia, as well as political, racial, religious groups etc.
While the State’s primary duty is to the people in its own country there are also duties to the global community e.g. assisting where other States are unable or refuse to ensure core minimum human rights for the discontented.
Consequently, individuals can pursue their dreams ethically e.g. exercising duties to the community, thereby overcoming a major criticism of individualism that it is freedom without social responsibility.