A letter: Neoliberal absolutism and global ethical individual rights plan for youth.



Anthony Ravlich

Chairperson

Human Rights Council (New Zealand)

10D/15 City Rd.

Auckland City.

Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658



The following is to Narayan Charmaker, Dalit Human Rights Activist and lawyer from Bangladesh, who asked me to write an article on Bangladesh recently experiencing violence with over 80 deaths. Also, a *Plan for Youth*.

Narayan,

with respect to the article, when I began to look at Islam and international human rights law which entered into force on 5 May 2013 I realized it could no longer be an article but needed to be a book especially as I see the possibility of compatibility between Islam and human rights given the ethical human rights I advocate. I just could not have done justice to this in an article (see below).

I have already done enough research for two books but only intend one so perhaps by the end of this year it may be possible to complete it. I’ll also post this on the social networking sites because I told others I was doing an article on Bangladesh as well. Broadly speaking:

Suffice to say that because the above international law allows equal status for civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights but also allows for compatibility with the IMF neoliberal economic policies what you are now seeing world-wide, in my view, is very extreme ‘top-down’ control of all aspects of human life covered by the UDHR.

I call it ‘neoliberal absolutism’. The aim, of course, is no different from history, it is to eliminate individual rights and freedoms and after a period of State dependency to also eliminate individual economic and social rights.

But if this ‘neoliberal absolutism’ is seen as a way of gaining the support of those absolutists that exist within aspect of Islam then I strongly disagree with this. Instead, global ethical human rights requires that all have, at the very least, the core minimum of rights within the UDHR which equate with the Golden Rule (‘Do unto others…) which the major religions, including Islam, believe in. It is much less important whether rule is considered divine or secular (rather the core minimums can be seen as reflecting both). I need more clarification on the latter which will require more work on my part before I am satisfied.

I see today as little different from the past except that it is not just the ‘State versus individual rights’ but also ‘World bodies versus individual rights’ i.e. the young could see little difference from history but because the problem is now global they can use the internet to get support globally e.g. States can claim the right to self-determination and reject IMF neoliberal economic policies and with the global ethical approach still have an ethical globalization without having to forgo State sovereignty (History sides with sovereignty and human rights truth sides with the young).

I hope the young being subjected to global mass discrimination will adopt the global ethical human rights as a PLAN which will give them a future which is far more theirs than the ignorant, cowardly, and paranoid human rights leaders that we presently have in the bureaucracy of States, including the United Nations bureaucracy, and I include individuals such as former New Zealand Prime Minster, Helen Clark (Head of UNDP), Navi Pillay, the present UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the previous High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in this.

Despite all my attempts I was unable to inform the global mainstream of the alternative ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (see anthony ravlich's blog, guerilla media) – there is no reason why the UN could not have used the public notices in the major newspapers (I did it twice) as I suggested to Navi Pillay who I also told I considered it a ‘crime against humanity’ that the global community has not been told about global ethical human rights . And especially now as there is increasing support, including high-profile, for the ethical approach (see blog cited above).

Theirs is a perverse vision of the future because the UDHR is ‘turned on its head’ to serve ‘left-tribal’ interests rather than emphasizing individual rights. While many weak political leaders in the West, where the UK Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, America Bill of Rights derive, seem to have lost the will to protect individual rights.

I see many youth joining the under classes and, under neoliberal absolutism, a global caste-type system seems almost inevitable unless this ideology is replaced.

‘Neoliberal absolutism’ was a choice and also a very ideological one with no respect for universal human rights truth or individual rights.

Finally, I would like to tell the young they were not born slaves (Art 1, UDHR) and they can fight for global ethical individual human rights, which also includes duties to the community, to set themselves free from the hate they are suffering and give themselves a future.

I would like to publicly debate this with anyone in the political/academic and human rights establishments if any still possess the courage of their convictions regarding neoliberalism. The people need to be able to judge for themselves what is authentic and what is rubbish.



PS. The international human rights law referred to above is the Optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.