UN's Gross Deceit: ethical human rights needed.
Describes UN's gross deceit e.g. human rights omissions to permit IMF [human rights free zone]. The lack of understanding by activists of political globalization which has seen the rise to dominance of bureaucracy. Also decimation of animal kingdom.
UN’s Gross Deceit: ethical human rights needed.
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
Some recent posts on the social media – the following are some of my research findings for a forthcoming book I am contracted to write.
7 October 2014
UNITED NATION'S GROSS DECEIT……..:
NEW IDEAS ARE NEEDED WHICH REFLECT TODAY'S WORLD.
So you understand economic globalization but not political globalization so Why Not Share My Work:
Human, Animal, Environmental, and Climate Change Activists - if you think the Corporations are impacting negatively in these areas then it makes sense to emphasize a 'bottom-up' approach to development i.e. the small entrepreneur, small/medium business, small farming practices (its means the Corporations will not have such dominance).
And this is what the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization does.
So why not share my work (why reinvent the wheel? - if you agree with it of course) - the aim is to get the ethical approach reflected in domestic and international human rights law.
In my view, as soon as it is seen that there is another alternative to neoliberalism [America] /neoliberal absolutism [United Nations] I think you will begin to see some positive progress because my work understands political globalization whereas nearly all activists, including human rights activists, have not altered their thinking to reflect the new world and the dominance of the bureaucrats at the UN and the EU.
I consider the lack of success of the Occupation shows the bureaucrats are really dismissive of those who don't really understand what is going on [although appreciate discontent directed away from themselves].
From my observation virtually all activists are still stuck in a former era and consequently can only understand economic globalization and Corporate dominance.
In my view, you could say the Corporations are [an] immediate cause of these problems while the bureaucrats are the distant cause but because they [the bureaucrats] determine what could loosely be called 'the rules of the game' it is they who have the real power.
The bureaucrats have excluded human rights from international human rights law although in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights e.g. property rights, individual self-determination, duty to the community as well as the core minimum human rights obligations of the State (in relation to economic, social and cultural rights).
The exclusions of these rights permitted the creation of the IMF [a ‘human rights free zone’] which discriminates on the grounds of intellectual property to strongly favor the global free market and the Corporations over the domestic free market and the small entrepreneur.
And because IMF policies are elitist so are human rights - creating huge inequalities around the world. [In my view] human rights are made compatible with IMF policies to ensure no human rights challenges to IMF policies.
It means that human rights strongly favor the collective i.e. the status quo and dominant elites, rendering the individual near worthless - but this is all done behind closed doors - bureaucratically-driven at the level of public policy, irrespective of the government in power. It constitutes the ideology of the State and politicians, leaders in the establishment, academics, including the Corporate leaders and leadership of many human rights organizations, will rarely ever tell you they are captured by it. While on the surface the courts continue to emphasis individual rights.
The creation of the IMF has permitted a 'divide and rule' with much global discontent directed at the IMF (and America's veto power) rather than the UN General Assembly which was the IMF's creator.
My articles can be found on Auckland, Ireland, San Francisco Indymedia or you can go straight to the internet and share the more recent.
An additional post:
Thanks for all those 'likes' Sabine - I can't remember ever getting so many 'likes' at the same time - but that's the life of an 'outsider' - unwanted. But as I said in the comments re the 'unwanted dog' post - I just posted a short piece – [but] much more needs to be added especially the present fraudulent intention of the UN to make the Corporations more socially responsible but fails to include the human rights omissions discussed in my article and, in fact, greatly increases the power of the Corporations who because exploitation is now permitted (by omission) under international law there is now nothing to stop them from relocating to States where they can best exploit workers - in my view, this will create a global slave economy and just to show how draconian it is I have little doubt we were meant to live lives in darkness with no hope of escape from this slave economy - see my recent post, 'UN's gross deceit, low cunning and lies', https://www.facebook.com/anthony.ravlich/posts/903991589612739, which will also be helpful to animal activists .
PS. Global exploitation was permitted when the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (a complaints procedure), was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008. It failed to include the core minimum obligations of the State as grounds for complaint. Not only does this means (given the IMF’s elitist [globalization] - compare with ethical globalization] ) economic, social and cultural rights would be focused on elites e.g. greater job security, rather than the most disadvantaged but because States are not required to have a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ it sanctioned exploitation under international human rights law. The Optional Protocol entered into force under international human rights law on 5 May 2013 and as of 7 September 2014 has 45 signatures with 15 State ratifications since it was open for signature on 24 September 2009. In my view, the adoption of the Optional Protocol rebalanced global power away from the West to other regions leading to the rise of repressive States to higher positions at the UN (see UN Watch). Consequently, in my view, we are likely to see a considerable decline in individual freedoms along with their greatest supporters, the West.
Animal Rights – Decimation of the Animal Kingdom
BBC – World-Wildlife Populations halved in 40 years, Roger Harrabin, BBC environmental analyst, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983
The above confirms my previous post where I attributed the decimation of the animal kingdom most likely due to the dominance of the Corporations which is permitted by the bureaucrats i.e. have omitted non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property, who have the real power because political globalization usurped State sovereignty – now much power in the hand of global institutions e.g. European Union, the United Nations.
I also attribute global warming to the dominance of the Corporations i.e. global warming has been increasing since the industrial revolution. But also other I think even more serious matters – (check out my work – see Auckland, San Francisco Bay, Ireland Indymedia).
In my view, don’t believe them – the bureaucrats, ideologically captured politicians and academics - when they say Corporations need to be more socially responsible – it sounds good but they just want greater bureaucratic control over all the independent sector i.e, the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination permitted by the exclusion of article 22 of the UDHR i.e. individual right to pursue one’s economic, social and cultural rights..
Rather I promote an ethical human rights, development and globalization (see end of article, ‘Comments on Helen Clark’s refusal to discuss global ethical human rights’ ) which is firmly based on the UDHR - emphasizes ‘bottom-up’ development e.g. small entrepreneur, small farming practices, rather than discriminating to strongly favor the Corporations.
Under the ethical approach all have duties to the community [including the bureaucrats and the Corporations but the latter without bureaucratic control to eliminate individual self-determination] which can include animals and the environment both of which can be important for human health (although I consider animals, like humans, have a right to be here and therefore important in themselves – not just ‘mere cronies’ (thanks, Sabine)). Duties to the community have been excluded from international human rights law and likely many State Constitutions i.e. in my view, they [the bureaucrats] regard human rights as their intellectual property and have no duty to tell you anything they don’t want to.
You can share this.
WHY take animals down with us?! Disturbing News. Newstalk ZB, October 1, 7am, the world's animal population has halved over the past 40 years - some reasons given: the conversion of forests to agricultural land and the over exploitation of certain species.
Its one thing humanity pursuing a self-destructive course i.e. neoliberal abolutism, but I object to them taking the animals down with them. People could try asking WHY do things seem to be getting worse - I mean nearly every child seems to ask WHY - I see oppressed people almost everywhere who seem to prefer to remain in fear and ignorance - the truth is the last thing they seem to want to know, if at all e.g. ever since I told people about the development of neoliberal absolutism at the UN on 10 December 2008 - I can't remember anyone ever asking me what it is and what does it mean - its no good waiting for your leaders to tell you because almost without exception they are ideologically captured. But OK so you don't want to know, fine (it will catch up with you sooner or latter) - but hands off taking the animals with you - OK! - I might be primarily a human rights person but, in my view, the animals have a right to be here too.
PS. I very much suspect the decimation of the animal kingdom is due to Corporate dominance rather than small farming practices.
Further to my earlier post (see below) where I supported David Cunliffe as the future leader of the Labour Party I managed to dig out his email to me in February 2013 when he replied to one of my articles. He stated: ‘I really like this piece. Especially…
“Global ethical human rights empowers people from the ‘bottom-up’, usually requiring independence of action and thought, whereas neoliberalism is concerned with ‘top-down’ control, often requiring collective action and collective thought.
In the economic and social sphere the ethical approach can forge new paths into the future while neoliberalism very largely perpetuates the status quo protecting the interests of powerful elites” (email, 13 Feb 2013).
Further to the above, in my current work, I describe the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination and discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property to strongly favor big business and the global free market over the small entrepreneur and the domestic free market.
The following is my previous post:
DAVID CUNLIFFE best to lead Labour: I see the possibility of a David Cunliffe led Labour and Key Government working together to have the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization reflected in domestic and international human rights law. The ethical approach, based firmly on the Universal Declaration, is, in my view, such a very powerful moral force it will prove unbeatable.
But there are concerns that the Universal Declaration may be rewritten given the rise of repressive States at the UN who, in my view, were supported by the secular, liberal collectivists e.g. Helen Clark [Head of the UNDP], who dominate the UN bureaucracy [also see the activities of the NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol (222 organizations in 70 countries, see above Post Script on the Optional Protocol) with its steering committee containing top human rights organizations which I consider are led by secular, liberal collectivists]. The rise of the repressive States means, in my view, the decline of individual freedoms as well as their greatest supporters the West.
David Cunliffe has supported (email sent to me) the ethical emphasis on bottom-up development which means greater emphasis on the domestic free market and small entrepreneur whose new ideas will not only create more jobs but take the country forward. If we ensure core minimum human rights for all (higher levels need to be earned) in NZ we can promote them globally. PS. I regard the bottom-up approach is much needed in Christchurch [suffered massive earthquakes] .- it will greatly empower those being pushed down [relegated] to lower social levels.
PS. In my view, all human rights organizations should be human rights transparent i.e. do they support the UN’s neoliberal absolutism, America’s neoliberalism or are they just holding the State to account for their human rights position or perhaps some other view such as ethical human rights (there is, in my view, no place for deceit in human rights - many lives as well as the future of the human rights belief system are at stake).
My article ‘Christchurch and Second-Class Citizenship’ didn't make the mainstream but Scoop and Rebuild Christchurch gave it very wide coverage - a significant number in Christchurch must have read it - my privacy issue problems now beginning to subside [only temporary, back to high levels] - Re secular, liberal collectivists, Orwell observed in the 1940s that those who you would think would be the greatest supporters of liberty were, in fact, its greatest enemies i.e. pro-totalitarianism, and that was the intellectuals themselves! In my experience, with the rare exception, they are all ideologically captured - and I also mean globally. That's the kind of world we now live in. Although I feel disappointed at not making the mainstream I don't think our leaders are feeling well either - I think its just a matter of time - the blatant hijacking of human rights (and also in my view, a 'divide and rule) cannot continue to be suppressed e.g. will Helen Clark be the next UN Secretary-General given she was Deputy PM at the time of the hijacking. I am not unforgiving but they had a CHOICE (including Helen Clark who I told directly in a packed auditorium) to let people know about global ethical human rights which had some top support and much written - but they refused. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1409/S00120/christchurch-and-second-class-citizenship.htm
New Zealand's Security Council bid given NZ hijacking of human rights - public should be informed of alternative global ethical human rights, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1409/S00120/christchurch-and-second-class-citizenship.htm
Will Helen Clark be next UN Secretary-General given she was Deputy PM during hijacking of human rights in NZ? - a CHOICE was given, http://t.co/g8rUW8xHEd