Section five chapter two Hijacking of NZ Human Rights.

Dumbing down New Zealand
I consider the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination resulted in a mass
exodus, including many of the ‘best and brightest’, with an estimated one million New
Zealanders, out of a population of 4.6 million, now living outside the country.
Consequently, in my view, the State effectively gave away much of the countries
intellectual property to ensure they were not held to account while the loss of such
intellectual property also signaled a decline in the development of human knowledge
with exploitation replacing creativity as a means of growth.
While, from my observation, the population seemed more concerned with short term
interests rather than considering the future consequences of the loss of such intellectual
property.
As at 30 June 2013, an estimated 640, 770 New Zealand citizens were present in
Australia. Other major destinations for New Zealanders are the UK, USA and Canada
(Statistics NZ. (2012)).
Kea New Zealand is a global network, which is largely government funded, with a
membership of half a million expat New Zealanders.
Kea Global Chief Executive, Craig Donaldson, said it was estimated that there are one
million Kiwis living overseas. He added that “New Zealand has the highest proportion
of highly skilled workers based off shore of any country in the OECD…’ (Kloeten N.
(2014)).
That the ‘best and brightest’ seemed to be the major target in New Zealand can be seen
154
from the survey findings of Kea New Zealand ‘Every Kiwi Counts 2011’ and other
authoritative surveys.
Kea New Zealand’s on-line survey of over 15,000 New Zealanders living offshore
states:
• Compared to on-shore New Zealanders in the 2006 Census, the overseas Kiwis
surveyed are about seven times as likely (34% v 5%) to have a post-graduate
qualification and almost three times as likely (31% v 11%) to have a Bachelor’s degree;
• Only 1% of overseas Kiwis say they have no formal qualifications, compared with
nearly one quarter (24%) of New Zealand residents who say the same (Kea New
Zealand. (2011)).
An OECD report in 2005, ‘Counting Immigrants and Expatriates in OECD Countries:
A New Perspective’, stated that both New Zealand and Ireland had the highest
percentage, 24.2 per cent, of its highly skilled (i.e. a tertiary education) leaving their
countries (Dumont J. and Lemaitre G. (2005)).
A World Bank study in February 2010, ‘The Economic Consequences of the Brain
Drain of the Best and Brightest’ in February 2010 described New Zealand, one of five
countries chosen for the study, as ‘the OECD country with the highest tertiary brain
drain rate’ (World Bank. (2010)).
New Zealand Ministry of Education research, entitled ‘Beyond Tertiary Study’, states:
New Zealand had lost 35 percent of its PhD students overseas. It stated: “The results
showed that for those domestic students who last studied in 2003 and achieved their
doctorate, around 65 percent were employed in New Zealand four years after they last
studied. This was lower than for students who last studied at masters (72 percent) and
bachelors (75 percent) level” (Smart W. (2011)).
The ‘big picture’ of the purging of home-grown intellectual talent can be seen on the
map ‘Migration and the Brain Drain Phenomenon’ shows that New Zealand falls into
the category ‘more than 20%’ share of a country’s nationals with a university education
who live in (another) OECD country’, (OECD. (2015)).
The above ‘big picture’ indicates that the ‘brain drain’ does not just apply to small
155
countries like New Zealand, which is sometimes is claimed, but also large countries in
Africa, Iran, the Philippines, Madagascar, as well as Great Britain, including Ireland.
In addition, it is frequently said that New Zealanders (i.e. ‘brains and brawn’) leave for
higher salaries overseas but this may well not apply to the ‘best and brightest’. A World
Bank’s study which includes New Zealand, ‘The Microeconomic Determinants of
Emigration and return Migration of the ‘Best and Brightest’ – Evidence from the
Pacific’ concluded:
‘…..we find that narrow measures of income gains or economic incentives for
migrating play a very minor role in determining which of the highly skill migrate and
return……the current migrants in our survey offer suggestions more closely linked to
improving the career opportunities rather than to simply raising salaries…” (Gibson J.
and McKenzie D. (2009)).
To counteract concerns about the ‘brain drain’ Treasury researchers argued that rather
than a ‘brain drain’ it was a ‘brain exchange’ i.e. there are incoming highly skilled
immigrants (Hayden G, and Wai C. (2001)).
However, compared with the exiting New Zealanders the immigrants would be
invariably politically safe being reluctant to ‘speak out’ in their new country and would
also be less likely to join trade unions. Also, immigrants would often lack the local
knowledge necessary for much entrepreneurial activity.
While, in my view, immigrants were often preferred to New Zealanders it seems that
Asians also were affected by the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination.
Despite being high achievers the discrimination was such that they were afforded
affirmative action. New Zealand had reached the absurdity of affirmative action for
‘tall poppies’.
Asians are generally acknowledged to have a strong work ethic and are by far the
highest achievers at school despite often being handicapped by having to learn English.
For instance, in the Ministry of Education’s table of Highest Attainment of School
Leavers (2009) it shows that those ethnic groups who reach university entrance level
(or level 3 qualification or higher) are as follows: Asian, 65 percent; European/Pakeha,
49 percent; Pasifica, 25 percent; Maori, 20 percent (Education Counts. (2010)).
156
Reported by Race Relations in 2011, annual UMR Research surveys on perceived
discrimination undertaken since 2001, ‘have consistently shown Asian people to be
perceived as the most discriminated against’.
It states: “An average of around 75 per cent of survey respondents identified Asian
people as suffering “a great deal” or “some” discrimination” (NZHRC. (2012)).
One of the two priorities of the NZ Human Rights Commission with respect to
discrimination is to ‘actively focus on inclusion in all aspects of New Zealand life as a
means to break down discrimination against Asian New Zealanders and other minority
ethnic groups” (NZHRC. (2012)).
The Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, considers more Asians should be
given affirmative action.
He told the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils in Wellington: “There
are very few Asians on the boards of District Health Boards, not enough Asian teachers
in our schools, not enough Asian local councilors community board members and
Asian migrants continue to face discrimination in applying for jobs.’
Joris de Bres said that one of the organizations that has strongly focused on Asian
recruitment over recent years is the New Zealand Police…All public agencies should
be doing the same. Some private sector organizations, such as the major banks, have
also reached out to Asian communities because it makes good business sense.’ (ONE
News. (2012)).
[In a more recent UMR Research Survey beneficiaries have overtaken Asians as the
group New Zealanders consider to be the most discriminated against. The survey found
74 per cent of people think beneficiaries are facing discrimination. Asians, who have
ranked at the top of the list since at least 2003, were second at 72 per cent (Dickison M.
(2013)).]
I consider the purging and crushing of potential described above which is part of the
cultural cleansing of individual self-determination seriously undermines the capacity of
the country to survive by crippling ‘bottom-up’ development in the independent sector.
For example, the country’s over reliance on the farming sector could be dangerous as
157
can be seen with the seventh consecutive decline in dairy prices by June 2015 (Radio
NZ. (2015)).
HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham, who first coined the phrase “rock star” in
January last year to describe New Zealand’s economic growth, says the economy is still
a rock star despite lower dairy prices and slower growth in major trading partners.
Bloxham said a range of indicators showed the New Zealand economy continued to be
supported by a construction boom [e.g. the Christchurch rebuild] and that overall GDP
growth was also running well above trend at 3.5 per cent year on year (NZ Herald.
(2015)).
An international report from the OECD states that rising inequality has wiped a third
off New Zealand’s growth in recent decades. The report found the impact of inequality
on growth stems from the gap between the bottom 40 per cent with the rest of society
not just the poorest 10 per cent (Kloeten N. (2014)).
Consequently, it certainly appears that the beneficiaries of the ‘rock star’ economy are
in the top 60 per cent while growth in GDP may have had more to do with an act of
nature i.e. the rebuilding following the Christchurch earthquakes, rather than the
government.
It seems the image that New Zealand projects of itself as a ‘rock star’, middle class
economy is to attract tourists as tourism is one of New Zealand’s largest export
industries.
Tourism New Zealand states: “Tourism is one of New Zealand’s largest export
industries, second only to the dairy industry in terms of foreign exchange earnings. It
directly employs 6.3 per cent of the New Zealand workforce and it has the potential to
improve the economies of communities around the country (Tourism NZ. (2016)).
Compliance with the UN
On 28 December 1978 reflecting the onset of political globalization the UN human
rights agenda and IMF economic globalization New Zealand ratified the international
158
covenants on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights both of
which come under international human rights law.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the New Zealand Human Rights Act
1993 are both based on the above international law. The latter allowed the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
The bill of rights “aims to affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental
freedoms in New Zealand—and to affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Act does not,
however, contain all the rights set out in the ICCPR. (It does not secure a general right
to privacy, for instance.)’ (bill of rights. (2014)).
Section 3 of the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 describes the latter as an ‘Act to
bind the Crown’ and states it is, ‘An Act…to provide better protection of human rights
in New Zealand in general accordance with United Nations Covenants or Conventions
on Human Rights.
In addition, New Zealand also ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of
racial discrimination on 22 November 1972 and the convention on the elimination of
discrimination against women on Jan 1985 with Maori and women accorded
affirmative action.
Affirmative action is included in section 19(2) of the bill of rights which states:
“Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or
groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of
Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination”.
However, in my view, because of social class discrimination middleclass, professional
women and Maori collectives were strongly favored over those for whom I consider
the affirmative action was really meant for – those women and Maori who suffered the
worst effects of historical discrimination, many of whom would be found at the bottom
of the social scale.
The failure to include non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin (which
permits social class discrimination) was raised by the UN Human Rights Committee
159
during New Zealand’s review in March 2010. As this was the first time it was
mentioned in the summary records it certainly appears that this was in response to our
council’s submission which described the effects of such discrimination (Ravlich A.
(2010)).
Committee member Zonke Majodina (who on 14 March 2011 was elected as the new
Chair of the Committee) raised the non-inclusion of discrimination on the grounds of
social origin: “On the specific question of whether New Zealand law currently
prohibited discrimination on the full range of Covenant grounds, the written replies
seem to concede that discrimination on the basis of social origin and property was still
not expressly prohibited (Summary Record. (2010)).
The exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin i.e. social status at
birth, allowed for both social class and socio-economic discrimination while the
exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of birth, which includes descent i.e.
family lineage permitted the Maori equivalent form of descent-discrimination,
Whakapapa.
Consequently, I consider it cannot be affirmative action ‘in good faith’ when such
descent-based discrimination is used to strongly favor middleclass, professional
collectives of women and Maori.
While non-discrimination with respect to women and race now exists social
class/socio-economic discrimination can exclude large numbers of women and Maori.
The exclusion of discrimination on the grounds of birth also appears necessary because
New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy (Ravlich A. (2013)).
While the role of the Governor-General, appointed by the Queen, is described as very
largely ceremonial it appears the omission of the above ground of non-discrimination
with respect to birth can allow, in an unusual situation, the Governor-General to decide
who governs.
Sir Kenneth Keith describes such a situation where ‘the position within the House or
the governing party is unclear’:
“Situations like this were rare in New Zealand under the first past the post electoral
160
system, but have been less rare since the introduction of the proportional representation
electoral system. The essential principle in such situations continues to be that the
Queen, as a constitutional monarch, or the Governor-General, as her representative,
acts in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or Ministers who have the
necessary support of the House of Representatives. Where that support is unclear, the
Governor-General relies on the elected representatives in the House, and especially the
party leaders, to clarify whether a party or grouping of parties has the support of the
House to govern, or whether fresh elections will be required” (Keith K. (2008)).
My research reveals that very little has been written about discrimination on the
grounds of social class/socio-economic status however an exception was a report for
the Irish Department of Justice which describes socio-economic status/social origin as
creating significant obstacles to equality of opportunity, equality of outcomes and
equality of participation.
The report confirms the above observation whereby social class discrimination can
preference different classes within, for example, race and gender. It states that while
there may exist non-discrimination with respect to certain grounds such as race and
gender social class discrimination means many of the latter can be overlooked. The
report states:
“ In most countries overt discrimination on the basis of social origin or
socio-economic status is rare. However,…discrimination on the basis of
socio-economic status/social origin is linked with, and underpins, discrimination on the
more widely covered grounds such as disability and race … [many of these groups]
also experience a higher risk of poverty and social exclusion, (Kilcommins S. et al.
(2004)).
The Irish report describes widespread recognition of such discrimination: “A concern
to prohibit discrimination on the basis of social origin/socio-economic status is evident
in many international legal instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(ECHR) and the ILO Convention No.111, Discrimination (Employment and
Occupation) Convention, 1958.
161
The Constitute Project describes 187 constitutions which have a general guarantee of
equality of which 89 countries include non-discrimination with respect to social status
and 41 countries have a similar non-discrimination regardless of parentage. Also, 55
countries make mention of social class.
However, no legally binding conventions with respect to descent have been devised by
the UN which seem necessary to ensure domestic implementation as has been the case
with respect to gender and racial discrimination (see above).
The lack of progress in devising a UN convention on another form of social
discrimination, caste discrimination, despite being prohibited by national constitutions,
is described in the section on Dalits in the chapter on Bangladesh.
Also, the Irish report describes little effective legal remedy as having developed despite
that ‘discrimination on the basis of social origin/socio-economic status is pervasive and
operates as a constraint on an individual’s social mobility’.
The report states: “…despite the widespread recognition that individuals face
discrimination on the basis of their social and economic backgrounds, little has
developed in the way of an effective legal remedy” (Kilcommins S. et al. (2004)).
Class-blind
It has been said that if New Zealand was to erect a huge statue like the Statue of Liberty,
it would be the Statue of Equality (Te Ara. (2005-2014)).
New Zealanders are, in my view, nurtured class-blind with social mores placing much
emphasis on equality. Class is not ‘officially’ recognized in New Zealand despite the
creation of a visible underclass on the streets of New Zealand in 1991 following the
severe benefit cuts and the creation of a middleclass, ‘rock star’ economy.
Also, economic, social and cultural rights, which is meant to protect against class
exploitation, has been very largely dealt with at the level of the United Nations keeping
New Zealanders, and most likely populations in many other countries, ignorant of such
class discrimination.
162
Whereas in South East Asia religion condones caste discrimination and it is openly
talked about, from my observation, in New Zealand social class discrimination is very
rarely talked about.
In terms of social mores, equality is portrayed as very important to New Zealanders yet
equal rights were not included in the bill of rights and neither was non-discrimination
with respect to social class, socio-economic status or birth and economic, social and
cultural rights were excluded.
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states that apart from Article 3 of the
Treaty of Waitangi, “there is no specific reference in New Zealand law to the right to
equality, a fact that the United Nations Committee on Human Rights has consistently
criticized in assessing New Zealand’s compliance with international standards on
equality and freedom from discrimination” (Human Rights Commission. (2004)).
In my experience, the secular collectivists are a social class and are very concerned to
conceal their hegemony and their social class discrimination is far more covert than
overt.
While New Zealanders seemed generally aware it was a different Labor Party which
took power in 1984 they invariably failed to see the class nature of the new Labor Party
who I describe as liberal collectivists.
The new Labor Party also included many professionals whereas the old Labor Party
contained many liberal individualists and was comprised of many non-professionals
and did not seem class-based.
Jack Nagel in the British Journal of Political Science (1998) provided statistics on the
occupations of NZ Labor MPs – in 1935 only 17.9% were from a professional,
semi-professional background but by 1984 this had risen to 73.2% (Ravlich A. (2004)).
The government projects New Zealand as a country with social equality without a
strong class system.
The New Zealand Immigration Service website on 17 Dec 2006 states: “Social values:
New Zealanders have a very similar way of life and share values common to most
Western countries, but there are some special features. We are passionate about sport,
163
and have a firm belief in social equality. The social welfare system prevents extreme
poverty, and the nation has neither a strong class system nor major social tensions.
Differences between high and low-income people are not pronounced”.
While the Auckland University website describes the country’s social norms for
international students. It states: “New Zealanders have a way of life that’s similar to
most Western countries, but there are some special characteristics. Kiwis are passionate
about sport and have a firm belief in social equality. The social welfare system prevents
extreme poverty, and the nation has neither a strong class system nor major social
tensions. Some minor ethnic tensions exist, but are low by international standards.
Goodwill between races is usually evident”.
It is also added: ‘New Zealand people dislike formality and tend to see each other as
equals’; ‘In the work place, relations between the sexes are egalitarian’ (New Zealand
Social Values. (2016)).
While describing Political Values Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, states
that a Statue of Equality rather than a Statue of Liberty would be more appropriate for
New Zealand:
“It has been said that if New Zealand was to erect a huge statue like the Statue of
Liberty, it would be the Statue of Equality. Like other countries, it has developed its
own national character, and equality, fairness and honesty are values which most New
Zealanders see as important … New Zealand’s political culture has changed slowly
over time – it is a country of slow evolution rather than rapid revolution (Te Ara.
(2005-2014)).

Section four chapter two Hijacking NZ human rights.

Ordinary or Constitutional Law
In a human rights world, New Zealand likes to be seen upholding human rights and the
bill of rights, which all public bodies must abide by, has considerable moral force
especially when also regarded as constitutional law.
While the bill of rights was presented as ordinary law by Geoffrey Palmer in the
Parliamentary Debates on the bill of rights he also referred to it as ‘an important
Constitutional measure’ (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
140
As did Richard Northey when he called the discussions ‘an important Constitutional
day for New Zealand because there is progress towards the achievement of a bill of
rights’ (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
Reflecting the confusion regarding the status of the bill of rights can be seen in the
Ministry of Justice’s descriptions. For instance, in ‘The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
(Overview)’ it states: “‘The Bill of Rights Act is an ordinary statute and so does not
override other legislation’ (Ministry of Justice. (2002)).
Whereas, in the Ministry of Justice’s ‘Constitutional Policy and Human Rights’ it
describes the bill of rights as ‘Another constitutional document’ (Ministry of Justice.
(2013)).
Similar confusion exists elsewhere. In the ‘New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A
Commentary’, the bill of rights is described as ‘…a short, but important piece of
constitutional law’ (Butler A. and Butler P. (2005)).
While in “The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: its operation and effectiveness” it
states: “The Bill of Rights is an ordinary statute and not entrenched” (Glazebrook S.
(2003)).
In 2012 a private member’s amendment bill from the Green Party described the bill of
rights as ‘an Act of fundamental constitutional importance’. The amendment bill saw it
as necessary to entrench the bill of rights by requiring 75 per cent of MPs to agree to
any change. It states: “Because the Bill of Rights is an Act of fundamental
constitutional importance, this Bill will also entrench its provisions so that these cannot
be amended or repealed by a simple majority of the House” (Green Party. (2012)).
If the Green Party amendment had succeeded a 75 per cent of MPs requirement would
have made it very difficult to include any omitted rights even those recommended by
the New Zealand Human Rights Commission i.e. equal rights, children’s rights and
perhaps also non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin (social status at birth)
(see below).
The above Green private member’s bill obviously agreed with the human rights
omissions in the bill which permitted collective dominance, the cultural cleansing of
141
individual self-determination and exploitation.
Powerful or Weak Bill of Rights
Rather than being a ‘weak’ bill of rights, which, from my experience, left-academics
often described it as being, the following shows how powerful it really is:
Under Section 7 of the bill of rights the Attorney General is required ‘to report to
Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights’.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer states: “The possibility of an adverse report by the
Attorney-General will, I think, have a salutary effect on those involved in the
legislative process. It will send a clear message that legislative proposals must be
consistent with those basic principles before a Bill is introduced” (Palmer G. (1990)).
Geoffrey Palmer also stated that ‘a Bill of Rights provides a set of navigation lights for
the whole process of Government to observe’ (Butler P. (2006)).
While in July 2002, Tim Caughley, New Zealand’s representative, told the UN Human
Rights Committee, who were reviewing New Zealand’s human rights record: “The Bill
of Rights is a ‘road map’ for public agencies”. He added: “All agencies of the
Government were required to act in accordance with the BORA”, (Summary Record.
(2002)).
While parliament is sovereign and the bill of rights can be trumped by ordinary statute
in twenty years only 19 bills have been passed by parliament against the advice of the
Attorney General.
The former Minister of Justice, Simon Power, told the UN Human Rights Committee in
2010: “Thus far, 49 bills had been found by the Attorney-General to be inconsistent
with the Act. Of those bills 19 had been enacted as introduced, 9 bills had been enacted
after being amended during the legislative process to address the Attorney-General’s
concerns, and 21 had not been enacted” (Human Rights Committee. (2010)).
While the above Green Party member’s amendment bill very largely confirms this
stating: “A recent analysis suggested that since 1991 more than 20 Bills have been
142
passed without identified inconsistencies being removed” (Green Party. (2012)).
As stated above s7 of the bill of rights requires the Attorney-General to report to
parliament on inconsistencies and the human rights omissions appears it may have
affected the culture of parliament itself in terms of what is discussed.
The former Minister of Justice, Simon Power, who said that ‘I have always told myself
I would leave politics before the idealism left me’, stated in his valedictory speech on 5
October 2011: “It’s our job to tackle the tough issues, the issues the public pays us to
front up to, and come to a view on. There are many debates that Parliament does not
want to have for fear of losing votes or not staying on message: abortion, adoption law,
children’s rights, and sexual violence issues. I don’t share this timid view” And he
added: “The truth is, if we don’t have those debates here, where will we have them?”
(Power S. (2011)).
Sir Ivor Richardson, President of Court of Appeal from 1996-2002 considers the
bureaucracy rather than the courts played the major role in the promotion of the bill of
rights.
And, in my view, this would also allow bureaucrats to exclude people’s rights i.e. in the
words of Warren Kyd ‘that rights, by not being included, could be excluded totally’
(see above).
Richardson states: “Litigation plays an important lesser part in assuring compliance
with basic legal standards and challenging ways of thinking.
He considers the role of the bureaucracy cannot be over emphasized: “In
practice………the Bill of Rights has had a major but less publicized impact on the
regular functioning of government — and not restricted to the duty of the
Attorney-General under s 7 to report to Parliament any provision in a Bill which
appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of
Rights.
“The important further point going beyond s 7, and which cannot be overemphasized,
is that all governmental agencies, including local government agencies, are required to
build Bill of Rights standards into decision-making at all levels. So that wider impact
143
affects day to day administration and policy development within government”
(Richardson I. (2004)).
Also, the strong impact of the Bill and that governments do not like to be seen ignoring
human rights is described by ‘Elections New Zealand’:
“While the Bill of Rights Act 1990 may provide weaker constitutional protection than
Palmer wanted, its impact has been significant on the behavior of both governments
and the courts. Its power has come from its persuasive force. Governments want to
avoid passing new bills that conflict with the Bill of Rights Act 1990. As a result, the
provisions of the Bill of Rights are taken into account when policy is drafted. Its
impact therefore is strong, but largely invisible to the public. Similarly, the courts have
been receptive to interpreting new legislation in a way that complements, rather than
conflicts with, the Bill of Rights” (Elections NZ. (2012)).
Human Rights Omissions/Statistics
Only very rarely, apart from the NZ Human Rights Commission and Amnesty
International (US), will anyone in the establishment, including MPs, talk about the
human rights omissions.
Amnesty International (America) described the omissions: “The New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990 (BORA) did not have protected legal status, which allowed for the
possible enactment of legislation contrary to its provisions. The BORA did not
incorporate all the rights provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(Amnesty. (2010)).
Also, some omitted human rights are recommended for inclusion by the NZ Human
Rights Commission – ‘equal rights’, children’s rights, as well as non-discrimination on
the grounds of social origin (i.e. social status at birth) is regarded as significant
(Human Rights in New Zealand. (2010)).
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states: “The BORA [bill of rights act]
affirms New Zealand’s commitment to the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and
144
Political Rights], although there is no explicit reference to equality before the law, the
right to privacy or reputation and family and children’s rights (which are also found in
the ICCPR), are not found in the BORA, but are partly addressed in other legislation”
(Human Rights in New Zealand. (2010)).
The Commission also states that the ‘omission of social origin or social class is also
considered significant’ (Human Rights in New Zealand. (2010)).
New Zealand has constantly ignored (in 1995, 2002, and 2010) the recommendations
of the UN Human Rights Committee to include many omitted civil and political rights
in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The following are the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee which
are concerned with civil and political rights:
1) 1995: “The Committee recommends that the State party take appropriate measures
to incorporate all the provisions of the Covenant into domestic law” (Concluding
Observations. (1995));
2) 2002: “The State party should take appropriate measures to implement all the
Covenant rights in domestic law” (Concluding Observations. (2002))
3) 2010: “The Committee reiterates its concern that the Bill of Rights Act 1990
(BORA) does not reflect all Covenant rights. The State party should enact legislation
giving full effect to all Covenant rights” (Concluding Observations. (2010))
While in the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights which deals with economic, social and cultural rights the Committee in
addition to recommending that New Zealand ‘adopt a human rights approach to
[Christchurch] reconstruction efforts’ (Section 21) also states that it is concerned that
‘economic, social and cultural rights are not recognized in the Bill of Rights’ and
‘urges’ New Zealand ‘to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights into the 1990
Bill of Rights’ (Section 10) (Concluding Observations. (2012)).
Usually, when questioned by the UN Human Rights Committee about the omissions
New Zealand argued that the human rights omissions are covered by other legislation.
Former Minister of Justice, Simon Power, told the UN Human Rights Committee:
145
“Where certain Covenant rights had not been directly included in the Bill of Rights Act,
they had been given effect by other legislation and the common law” (Summary
Record. (2010)).
Economic, social and cultural rights, although ratified by New Zealand under
international law in 1978, were also excluded from the bill of rights although the select
committee did recommend that they be included as principles to aim at but Geoffrey
Palmer followed the Western tradition of only including individual freedoms in
constitutional law which placed restraints on the powers of government rather than
‘welfare rights’ which made resource demands.
Geoffrey Palmer in the Parliamentary debates on the bill of rights stated: “The select
committee recommended the inclusion of some social and economic rights as
principles to aim at. Such rights would not have been enforceable, and it was decided
not to include any of them in the Bill. Bills of Rights are traditionally about putting
restraints on the powers of the State. Hence, they tend to focus on procedural rather
than substantive rights. Social and economic rights are in a different category. That
does not mean that those rights are of lesser importance, but, rather, that they should be
protected in a different way”
Palmer stated in the parliamentary debates: “A Bill of Rights is traditionally concerned
with putting restraints on the powers of the State and is about guarding individual
liberty. Social and economic rights are in a different category requiring positive action
by the State” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
My research shows that many of New Zealand’s worst social statistics correlated with
the human rights omissions (see Appendix 1).
Our council’s submission on 23 May 2011 to the UN Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, which was conducting a review of New Zealand’s record, is
entitled ‘New Zealander’s must speak out about the human rights omissions or be
reduced to mere numbers’ (Ravlich A. (2011)).
The submission lists many of the human rights omissions and provides the serious
social statistics which correlate with the omissions. This list is provided in the appendix
(further serious social statistics can also be found in my article, (Social Statistics.
146
(2011)).
The submission lists the following omissions giving the relevant social statistics:
children’s rights, individual right to pursue one’s economic and social development
(individual self-determination), family rights, property rights, equal rights,
non-discrimination with respect to social origin and birth and non-retrogression i.e.
ensuring existing rights are not removed.
Economic, social and cultural rights are also omitted but are not covered in the
submission.
The UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ is accommodated in the bill of rights by the
exclusion of the right to individual self-determination, property rights (including
intellectual property rights), duties to the community, and the State’s core minimum
obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights.
Part ll, Article 2(1), of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides a list of
prohibited grounds of discrimination such as race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.
However, New Zealand human rights law leaves out non-discrimination with respect to
social origin, property (including intellectual property), language, birth as well as
‘other status’.
In 2010 the New Zealand government when responding to a list of questions from the
UN Human Rights Committee stated: “The prohibited grounds of discrimination in the
Human Rights Act 1993….do not expressly cover language, social origin and property
as provided for in the Covenant (List of Issues. (2009)).
By accident or design New Zealand appears to have failed to include the omission of
non-discrimination on the grounds of birth, which allows Maori to discriminate on the
grounds of Whakapapa and supports New Zealand’s status as a Constitutional
Monarchy, when responding to the list of issues.
The above grounds of non-discrimination which were excluded enabled collectives,
including the Corporations, to be favored while suppressing individual
self-determination using bureaucratic compliance.
147
In my view, the exclusion of non-discrimination with respect to intellectual property as
well as duty to the community permitted the ‘secular, liberal collectivists’, both
domestically and at the UN, to keep many important human rights truths ‘in-house’ by
virtually regarding human rights as their intellectual property while having no duty to
share their human rights intellectual knowledge with those they choose not to.
Consequently, in my view, employers, sometimes expressing concern about
confidentiality when hiring staff, exercised discrimination on the grounds of
intellectual property choosing only those they trusted to share their human rights
knowledge with.
From my observation, the latter were often the lower functioning, more dependent
individuals, those regarded as ‘victims’, those of the same class, often those
professional women, especially feminists, and Maori professionals afforded affirmative
action rather than those chosen on merit.
Affirmative action for gender, race and disability meant that ‘victims’ replaced ‘the
best and brightest’ reducing the establishment, in my view, to less than mediocrity.
In addition, included in the mass exodus may have been many white males suffering
the consequences of reverse discrimination.
Discrimination against men appears to be a major social problem which seems very
largely suppressed.
A Men’s rights advocate for 20 years, Kerry Bevin, cites one statistic which
particularly indicates the discrimination that exists against males. He quotes the
Coroner’s Report 2014/15 which states that 75% of deaths by suicide are males i.e. 428
males compared with 136 females, and this percentage has remained relatively constant
over the years since 2007/2008 (Coroner. (2014/15)).
Former Chief Coroner Neil MacLean is described as having been ‘very outspoken on
suicide, saying it remains a taboo topic that is rarely talked about or discussed’ (Herald.
(2016)).
Kerry Bevin in his submission to the N.Z. Family Court Review describes a ‘gender
bias against males’. He states: “Affirmative action” promoted by the Minístry of
148
Women’s Affairs has developed feminist ideas toward a fatherless society, validating
gay parenting, denying obvious bias and placing legal process in a fraught context.
Such social engineering is disapproved of by many” (Bevin K. (2012)).
He describes a division which has grown between the sexes in the Western world
which he likens to a ‘Mexican stand-off’. He also cites a book, ‘Men on Strike’, written
by an American psychologist, Helen Smith.
Helen Smith considers that American society has become anti-male. She adds: “Men
are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike”.
They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and
fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have
been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a
vacation from responsibility simply because they can”.
Kerry Bevin regards Helen Clark’s nine years as Prime Minister was the source of
much anti-male social engineering. He describes some other areas of anti-male
discrimination:
(1) The legalized theft of men’s property. Bevin states that ‘under relationship
property law women who have lived with a man for only two years can claim half his
wealth and assets and a percentage of his business’;
(2) Bevin states that ‘prostate cancer screening with blood tests allows early detection
that enhances cure and recovery. This is not government subsidized. Large subsidies
are provided for cervical and breast screening which is free’;
(3) Bevin is very critical of the Family Court. He states: “Sexist bias against fathers in
family disputes and non-acceptance of equal shared parenting has generated an
abhorrence of judiciary. Complaints are ignored. Family devastation has become the
norm for many” (Bevin K. (2015)).
Hans Levin, a psychologist from the Ministry of Men’s Affairs, describes further areas
of discrimination against males which can be found in Appendix Three (Levin H.
(2015)).
[The Ministry of Men’s Affairs describes itself as ‘A Community Group because
149
successive governments have failed to respect the voice and welfare of New Zealand
men’].
In my view, employers were often more concerned to ensure compliance rather than
achieve success and, from my observation, those perceived as ‘too truthful’, ‘too good’
or ‘too intelligent’ were often overlooked.
It was not uncommon to hear of people being excluded from employment for being
overqualified even when there were sparse opportunities available elsewhere.
There may also have been a national security concern when hiring staff. Human rights
is part of a countries ‘way of life’ and the protection of which people are prepared to
die in times of war.
Consequently, excluding individuals who might expose serious human rights
deficiencies may be regarded as a matter of national security.
Colin Keating, New Zealand’s representative told the UN Human Rights Council:
“With regard to discrimination in employment, he noted that all Governments
exercised some discretion as to which individual were employed to maintain national
security” (Summary Record. (1995)).
In my view, discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property was also used to
favor the intellectual property of the Corporations and the global free market.
For example, in my view, small business and the domestic free market appeared to be
discriminated against, suppressed by bureaucratic red-tape.
The latter, which is also described in chapter one, was exposed after the first
Christchurch earthquake in September 2010 when the government had to assumed
higher executive power and used ‘orders in council’, to cut though the red tape
involving 22 statutes to assist small business (Recovery Act. (2010)).
In my view, the failure to include the right to individual self-determination in the bill of
rights meant that small entrepreneurs could not challenge bureaucratic red-tape.
Furthermore, the right-wing National Party while often giving lip-service regarding the
importance of small business failed to take the opportunity to extend the assistance to
150
small business nation-wide after the first Christchurch earthquake.
Julian Smith, the general manager of MYOB, an Australian multinational corporation
that provides tax, accounting and other services to small and medium businesses, said
that the Government’s support of Canterbury businesses in the wake of the region’s 7.1
magnitude quake should be replicated nationwide.
He said: “In less than a week, they cut through red tape to provide wage assistance for
employers, access to emergency funding, and a truly impressive level of flexibility
from the IRD [Inland Revenue Department], with much of it managed through a central,
local source”
“However, the kind of model they have put in place, and clearly demonstrated they
have the capability to do so, is essentially one that businesses all around the country are
asking for,” he said.
He said a survey, of more than 1000 New Zealand business owners, in August 2010
showed increasing dissatisfaction with red tape and the performance of the
Government. It reported almost twice as many businesses were dissatisfied with the
support of the Government (29 percent) than those that are satisfied (15 percent)
(MYOB. (2010)).
Entrepreneurial risk taking is also extremely difficult when failure can mean you, and
perhaps your family, joining the underclass.
And it is also, in my view, made more difficult by the exclusion of family and
children’s rights as the family unit often plays a very important part in small business
often run by families.
Business owners are often motivated by providing a good life for their children made
more difficult when children are attributed as being of little importance in a society
which shows little interest in growing the economy to provide them with employment.
The importance of a small family unit can be more clearly seen in Maori tribalism
where, from my observation, its extended family/whanau, makes it virtually impossible
for many Maori to operate a small business when so many others, without contributing,
seek to share in the profits.
151
Consequently, it may not be surprising that Maori’s educational achievement (see
below) is so lacking because young Maori most likely see little hope in fulfilling their
dreams.
More recently the findings in the People’s Report of the Glenn Inquiry into domestic
violence can, in my view, be attributed to a considerable extent to the omissions of
children’s and family rights in the bill of rights while the ‘ideological capture’ of the
State may help explain the State’s seeming lethargy in addressing the problem.
The inclusion of children’s rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was not
included for discussion in the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children launched in July
2011 (see below) despite the inclusion of these rights being recommended by the NZ
Human Rights Commission (Human Rights Commission. (2010)).
From 2004 to 2008, the reported number of substantiated child maltreatment findings
for children 16 and younger had risen from 8,500 to 16,000. During that time, the total
number of children in that age range remained at about 1 million (Human Rights
Committee. (2010)).
In 2011 Committee expert Maria Herczog, UN rapporteur for New Zealand on
children’s rights, said that infant and child mortality rates remained “staggering”…. that
twenty percent of New Zealand children lived in poverty, and the high rate of Maori
and Pacific poverty was of particular concern…that New Zealand lacked “an
overarching comprehensive child policy” that integrated the Convention on the Rights
of the Child into legislation and strategy frameworks (3 News. (2011)).
It appears that while the conventions with respect to non-discrimination on the grounds
of gender and race took almost immediate affect e.g. affirmative action, in New
Zealand the failure to include children’s rights in the bill of rights meant the convention
on the rights of the child was of much less concern.
By 2013 the People’s Report state that Child, Youth and Family substantiated nearly
23,000 cases of child abuse (Glenn Inquiry. (2014)).
While the report describes New Zealand as having ‘the fifth highest rate of child abuse
in the OECD’.
152
The People’s Report states that ‘indications are that in a similar percentage of child
abuse cases there is also domestic violence happening’ and that ‘almost 60% of all
reported violence in New Zealand is family related’ (Glenn Inquiry. (2014)).
Jonathan Boston, Professor of Public Policy at Victoria University, describes the child
poverty rate as almost doubling since the 1980s. He states: “For instance, on one
measure of income poverty (i.e. those living in households with equivalent disposable
incomes below 60% of the median, after housing costs) the child poverty rate in recent
years has been around 25%, this is almost twice the rate experienced during the 1980s,
which averaged about 13%” (Boston J. (2013)).
While a UNICEF report, ‘Children of the Recession’, compared New Zealand’s
performance with some other countries. It stated that New Zealand’s child poverty rates
have come down by less than half a per cent since 2008. By contrast, Australia reduced
its child poverty rate by more than 6 per cent over the same period, and Finland and
Norway, countries with similar populations, reduced theirs by more than 4 per cent and
3 per cent respectively (UNICEF report. (2014)).
Professor Paul Hunt, a New Zealander now at Essex University (UK), who was guest
speaker at the AGM of the Human Rights Foundation, said that while he personally
would like to see children’s rights included in New Zealand’s law that this is unlikely
to occur soon (Ravlich A. (2012)).
Professor Hunt, who was the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur (expert) on Health for
six years and formerly a member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, was giving a talk on ‘Poverty in New Zealand: A Human Rights
Imperative’ at the Auckland University Law School.
Professor Hunt was largely concerned with economic, social and cultural rights which
have also been omitted from the bill of rights, and he described how poverty was
getting worse in New Zealand and he provided three indicators of this:
1) He pointed to a 2008 New Zealand Living Standards Survey by the NZ Ministry of
Social Development which showed that 19 percent of children (0-17) have relatively
high hardship rates;
153
2) Professor Hunt said that in relation to child health levels, rheumatic fever in New
Zealand was amongst the worst in the world, see (The Porritt Lecture. (2010));
3) He also pointed to the considerable growth in the use of food banks. He may have
been referring to statistics released in December 2010 which showed that the Salvation
Army distributed 67,000 food parcels during the year compared to 30,000 in 2008
(‘New Poor stretching food bank resources’, see (New Zealand Labor. (2011)).

Saving the World.

SAVING THE WORLD. I have posted on social media many times that ethical human rights, which emphasizes sovereignty, would replace the New World Order or One World Government. The latter require many human rights omissions which my book shows created an ‘evil’ ideology, Neoliberal Absolutism, at the UN on 10 Dec 2008. This evil ideology ensures a form of totalitarianism for each State whereby people will not be able to think for themselves or have a conscience of their own. It was the latter i.e. creativity, which led to the rise of western civilization. Neoliberal Absolutism determines the decline of western civilization and global freedom. It is my personal belief that God is the creative force within so the New World Order aims to eliminate God.Ethical human rights would not only replace neoliberal absolutism but also UN Agendas 21 and 30 as well as the Great Reset all of which require a One World Government. My book is free and the chapter on Ethical human rights, development and globalization can be found on my blog.

Chapter Four Ethical human rights, development and globalization.

I have posted on social media many times that ethical human rights, which emphasizes sovereignty, would replace the New World Order or One World Government. The latter require many human rights omissions which my book shows created an ‘evil’ ideology, Neoliberal Absolutism, at the UN on 10 Dec 2008. This evil ideology ensures a form of totalitarianism for each State whereby people will not be able to think for themselves or have a conscience of their own. It was the latter i.e. creativity, which led to the rise of western civilization. Neoliberal Absolutism determines the decline of western civilization and global freedom. It is my personal belief that God is the creative force within so the New World Order aims to eliminate God.

Ethical human rights would not only replace neoliberal absolutism but also Agendas 21 and 30 as well as the great reset which require a One World Government. The following chapter describes ethical human rights in detail:

Chapter Four Ethical human rights,
development and globalization.
You could say ‘the rule of mother earth is not over yet’ but we are more than just the
body ‘we are the soul’ which is what ethical human rights is about.
Human rights omissions can distort people’s perception of reality.
When people are unable see the cause of their problems because human rights
omissions are rarely admitted they are unable to direct their discontent towards those
responsible for the human rights malpractice.
Therefore, people are vulnerable to having their discontent channeled, particularly by
the dominant elite, towards those who are not responsible for the human rights
malpractice but rather suit elite interests.
Because the considerable majority of States in the UN General Assembly supported the
creation of neoliberal absolutism it is not surprising that many States channel
discontent towards those countries which most oppose totalitarianism, often Western
countries, particularly America.
America’s neoliberalism can, in my view, be considered a lesser form of totalitarianism
whereas the UN’s neoliberal absolutism is the much greater form.
Both neoliberal variants require the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda. The latter
transforms universal civil and political rights truth into neoliberalism while
transforming universal human rights truth (containing both sets of rights) into
neoliberal absolutism.
The ethical approach to human rights is firmly based on the Universal Declaration and
so if adopted would eliminate both neoliberal variants.
236
I consider ethical human rights is both idealistic and realistic. It is idealistic because it
is based on universal human rights truth with no human rights omissions.
It emphasizes first addressing the core minimum human rights which ensures the
individual is not subjected to the worst human rights violations which I consider is
realistic.
Imagine the sheer impossibility, at least in the foreseeable future, of trying to ensure the
approximately one billion people living in extreme poverty in the world or even, say,
the population of India, having their highest levels of human rights.
While much the same could be said about the lack of individual freedoms, such as a
voice, given that about 40% of the world’s population do not live in democratic
regimes (Roser, 2016).
Therefore, first addressing people’s core minimum human rights is far more realistic
but also idealistic because it means rule of law would be based on universal human
rights truth rather than ideology which kills by gross neglect and crushes the potential
of very large numbers.
Ethical human rights are described as follows:
(1) Ethical human rights require for all, at least, all the core minimums of all the rights
in Universal Declaration of Human Rights which comprises both economic, social and
cultural rights and civil and political rights.
The latter sets of rights entail survival with dignity (survival rights), reflecting the core
minimum of economic, social and cultural rights, PLUS the added dignity of self-help
(self-help rights), reflecting the core minimum of civil and political rights.
Both sets of human 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 indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality”.
The core minimums should be sufficient for individual self-determination which
requires both sufficient ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ which enables the
237
individual to seek truth, hopes, dreams and reach full potential as well as enabling
dissent.
But such freedom is also social responsible because it is required for all.
Consequently, in my view, the individual, State and World will be able to reach full
potential while also exercising duties to the community both domestic and global (see
duties, below).
As it involves duties as well as economic, social and cultural rights ethical human
rights can be called a socially responsible individualism.
Because of the nature of the core minimum obligations which involves serious
violations they should be implemented within an immediate timeframe or as soon as
possible.
If this is beyond the capacity of the country it can call for international assistance.
Whereas the human rights omissions of the liberal collectivists and liberal
individualists can be deadly ethical human rights is not deadly because it includes all
the human rights in the Universal Declaration, albeit only at the level of the core
minimums.
The principle involved in ethical human rights 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.
While the OP established the equal status of both sets of rights it was only at the higher
level of rights because it failed to ensure the equal status of both sets of rights at the
lower level of the core minimum obligations, which involve the most serious
violations.
The latter allowed the most serious violations to be overlooked.
Ethical human rights, which requires all people have, at least, the core minimum of all
the human rights in the Universal Declaration, only requires the equal status of both
sets of rights at the level of the core minimum obligations but not at the higher level.
238
Therefore, the State can prioritize whichever set of rights it wishes as long as it ensures
the State’s core minimum obligations for all.
So, for example, America can continue to focus on civil and political rights as in the
Constitution while China can continue to prioritize economic, social and cultural rights
but both countries ensure for all the core minimum human rights.
When ethical human rights are adopted by, the State, political party or association etc.
it effectively makes a choice of freedom over slavery because without the core
minimums individuals are living in extreme violence (including extreme poverty) and,
in my view, enslaved.
Also by adopting ethical human rights the State or group adopts the path of
non-extreme violence except in self-defense.
Having both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ are necessary as, in my view, certain
disingenuous States can provide freedom with one hand but take away food with the
other or vice versa to undermine individual self-determination which requires sufficient
of both.
For example, Bangladesh has made great strides in alleviating extreme poverty but
individual freedoms are in serious decline which undermines individual
self-determination as seen with the seeming decline of its famed microloan self-help
scheme.
In my opinion, those who promote addressing extreme poverty but not self-help, often
only seek to keep the very poor in a state of dependency, virtual slaves, under their
control without any hope of rising above their station in life as certainly appears to be
the case with the Dalits.
I consider the poor should have a voice of their own in the mainstream media to enable
them to inform the democratic majority. In my view, the cost would be very minimal
when compared to the MDG goals.
The example, of the fish and the fishing rod is often given. If you give a person a fish
everyday he/she will become dependent on you but if you provide a fishing rod then
he/she can become independent.
239
However, insecure States and elites with a totalitarian mind-set consider such
independence poses a threat and seek to control virtually all behavior under the
Universal Declaration.
While the core minimum rights are ensured higher levels need to be earned so no forms
of discrimination are permitted.
Consequently, the deserving and the gifted must succeed or, at least, be seen to
succeed.
Some of the forms of non-discrimination described in preceding chapters that help to
crush human potential and which I consider need much greater attention in today’s
world are: non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property,
non-discrimination on the grounds of caste, birth, which includes descent e.g. family
lineage, social origin i.e. social status at birth, which includes non-discrimination on
the grounds of social class and non-discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic
status (e.g. wealth).
While, in my view, affirmative action (involving indirect discrimination) has been used
to purge the ‘best and brightest’ from professional ranks replacing them with those
viewed as ‘victims’ of discrimination.
I consider affirmative action should be directed at those who have suffered the worst
forms of discrimination who are often found at the bottom of the social scale. When
‘victims’ replace the ‘best and the brightest’, in my view, the leadership and
establishment reduces to less than mediocrity.
In addition, ensuring no forms of discrimination would enable the poor, whose voices
are often drowned out by the rich, to have a voice of their own in the mainstream media
so they can influence the democratic majority.
This would also help ensure that the mainstream media do not hide what is happening
at the lower social levels from the mainstream and democratic majority.
What I discovered in New Zealand is that the left is really a social class. While in
America even though Franklin Roosevelt talked about non-discrimination i.e.
regardless of ‘station, race or creed’ (FDR. (1944)) I cannot find any
240
non-discrimination law in America which describes non-discrimination on the grounds
of social class.
I consider the present day so-called left liberals are overly consumed with identity
politics and virtually completely ignore those lower on the social scale e.g. many of
those who supported Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but also those blacks, women
and minorities lower on the social scale who did not receive affirmative action. Rather
they seem to join forces with other social controllers, middle class, professionals often
against the rest of the population.
Few people seem aware that present day liberals discriminate on the grounds of social
class (although Britain is well-known for it). But today’s left liberals unlike the liberals
about 30 years earlier are a social class, in my view, fanatical about social control, and
are best described as liberal collectivists because they are a class which promotes
collectivism i.e. the collectives, which translates into the establishment versus the rest
leading to a huge social divide.
By contrast, the liberals, who I call liberal individualists, about 30 years earlier
emphasized individual rights and universality.
I think almost all the mainstream media need to look at themselves because as with the
dominant elite, the liberal collectivists, they are, in my view, using human rights as a
political weapon to further their class interests and are engaging in what can be
described as class warfare.
However, in my view, being collectives used to blaming others for their problems few
are likely to have the capacity to engage in self-reflection.
Those who I describe as having suffered seriously because of discrimination should, in
my view, be permitted to seek compensation.
Article 8, UDHR, states: ‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by
the constitution or by law’.
Affirmative action may be one way of addressing compensation for many. For example,
in addition to the creation of underclasses there were, from my observation, many
241
entrepreneurs also treated as virtual social outcasts. They could be assisted to help
themselves as well as providing employment for those in the underclass.
(2) Individual self-determination means there is an emphasis on an ethical ‘bottom-up’
development e.g. small social/ economic entrepreneurs, small/medium business, rather
than, at present, the Corporations.
By emphasizing the small entrepreneur would often mean 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) emphasizing individual creativity and
entrepreneurship rather than an emphasis on ‘top-down’ development by the State or
the establishment (see the rebuilding of Christchurch in the chapter on New Zealand).
The latter would, in my view, very likely mean far greater employment and new
enterprises in the independent sector providing alternative employment for
professionals and workers rather than being overly dependent on the Corporations
and/or the State for employment.
The emphasis of the Universal Declaration is on the individual. Also, Article 2(1) of
the Declaration on the Rights to Development seems to describe ‘bottom-up’
development as based on the individual: “The human person is the central subject of
development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the rights to
development”.
Ethical human rights enable individual self-determination which allows individuals to
reach their full potential and enables the development of human knowledge and
creativity as a way of overcoming the major problems facing the world such as
exploitation, climate change, and the decimation of the wild life population.
The West has often been at the forefront of the development of human knowledge
while other cultures – totalitarian, repressive and various tribal groups – often seemed
to fail to ‘pull their weight’ in the often extremely onerous task of forging new paths
into the future.
Ethical human rights help ensure that all States ‘pull their weight’ in terms of the
development of human knowledge which totalitarian and repressive States often avoid
242
because the seeking of truth and creativity can pose a challenge to an insecure State
leadership.
Ethical ‘bottom-up’ development encourages ongoing development whereas at present,
in my view, many in the West seem to be in a state of arrested development (as well as,
in my view, many having been effectively silenced) with the State having low rates of
growth.
Ethical human rights places limits on the free market by protecting against exploitation
but by ensuring individual self-determination it enables competition and would, in my
view, be in capitalism’s long-term interests.
For instance, in my view, corporations which become ‘too big to fail’ and require State
assistance are likely to be often due to lack of competition in the domestic free market.
(3) Fair competition without exploitation by States. An ethical globalization requires
ethical human rights ‘bottom-line’ for all States comprising core minimum human rights

  • both individual freedoms and socio-economic rights.
    Such a ‘bottom-line’ protects against extreme ‘top-down’ control and compliance by
    the State as well as ensuring fair competition without exploitation between States.
    For example, China and India would not get an unfair competitive advantage by
    exploiting their vast workforce. Rather competitive advantage would be based on
    creativity which the West has traditionally excelled in.
    Ethical globalization is not necessarily a return to protectionism. For example, people
    can be informed e.g. labelling of goods, how goods are made, for example, with child,
    sweatshop or slave labor. As well as ensuring no such exploitation takes place it
    provides opportunities for domestic production.
    It could be argued that this would deprive people of employment in the less developed
    regions however the latter could place greater emphasis on bottom-up development
    instead of big business and so very likely be able to provide greater employment.
    (4) Ethical duties are domestic and global: Article 29(1) states: “Everyone has duties in
    which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible”.
    243
    Consequently, under global ethical human rights all individuals and associations have
    duties while the State has the ultimate duty to ensure all within the country have their
    core minimum human rights.
    While there is a right to association the association or collective does not have rights
    only individuals which is the emphasis in the Universal Declaration.
    It is the duty of States to first ensure their citizens have their ethical human rights and
    then, where it is within the capacity of the State, there is a duty to help other States to
    ensure ethical human rights for their people.
    I regard it as self-evident that people are not perfect (i.e. no one is God) and neither are
    their laws so leadership must be held to account. The West has had some success in
    holding leadership to account using democracy, constitutions, an independent judiciary
    and mainstream media.
    In my view, without such accountability you can have dangerous States. North Korea
    appears to be such a State.
    As part of one’s global ethical duty to help the ethical approach should be known as
    widely as possible including those deprived of their ethical human rights in other
    countries which will give them a belief to fight for domestically and/or internationally.
    Ethical human rights will also hold leadership to account because ethical human rights
    are firmly based on the Universal Declaration which all States are said to have signed:
    Youth for Human Rights International states: “Today there are 192 member states of
    the UN, all of whom have signed on in agreement with the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights” (UDHR, 2002-2016).
    The aim is to have ethical human rights reflected in domestic and international human
    rights law.
    In my view, in human rights the ends do not justify the means. For example, you
    cannot use force to impose ethical human rights.
    It is possible that people may choose to forgo their ethical human rights perhaps for the
    sake of some greater good. In other words, people have the right to choose to be slaves
    244
    but this may not apply to all and those who are discontented can be helped by giving
    them a voice if it is not possible domestically then internationally.
    And not using force in human rights could also be said for democracy but the West
    appears to have been prepared to impose this by force when seeking regime change.
    Consequently, while there may be exceptions involving self-defense, global duty is, in
    my view, best limited to alternatives to using force such as education in ethical human
    rights and humanitarian assistance.
    If the situation within the country is so perilous that it is not possible within the country
    to promote ethical human rights for inclusion in domestic human rights law the activist
    could focus on trying to have ethical human rights reflected in international law.
    With respect to the refugee crisis I consider the latter, under ethical human rights,
    should be a duty of all States to address not just left to others such as the European
    Union and Turkey.
    In addition, education in ethical human rights could be provided for refugees and
    immigrants to gain a better understanding of Western culture.
    Also, ethical human rights is religion friendly as it is based on a universal truth,
    involves duties to the community and better enables religious political parties to play a
    greater role in the public domain (see the end of the chapter on Bangladesh).
    I consider it would also enable those belonging to various religions to use reason to
    better think for themselves perhaps focusing more on culture than religion.
    Such a fostering of independent minds within the Muslim religion would likely deter
    any of their religious leadership, likely wishing to avoid accountability, using migrants
    to undermine Western culture and global freedom.
    There is a duty to inform people of important human rights truths as well as a need for
    Human Rights Transparency by those involved in human rights, individuals,
    organizations and the State.
    People need to know whether the latter are promoting universal human rights truth or
    an ideology, invariably in elite interests. The latter is described more fully in chapter
    245
    one.
    For instance, people need to know whether the human rights being promoted are based
    on the Universal Declaration, the American Constitution, or as determined by the UN
    which would include the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
    Such human rights individuals and organizations often seek public donations so people
    should be informed whether it is accordance with the Universal Declaration or whether
    it promotes a form of totalitarianism.
    In addition, people need to be informed of human rights omissions as well as the likely
    consequences otherwise people do not know the likely cause of their problems and can
    end up blaming themselves or others not responsible for the human rights malpractice.
    History seems to favor sovereignty. Under ethical human rights States do not have to
    forgo considerable national sovereignty to the UN or regional body such as the
    European Union or the East Asia Community.
    The UN or regional body, in my view, in terms of human rights, would be best to limit
    themselves to holding States to account for their core minimum obligations i.e. only
    concern themselves with the most serious human rights violations.
    The latter approach would allow greater national sovereignty with States determining
    higher levels of human rights. For example, in democracies higher levels of rights can
    be determined by political parties and ensure the State retains considerable sovereignty.
    An ethical human rights base could be adopted by liberal, socialist, religious/ethnic
    political parties including Islamic political parties. The UN Committee on Economic,
    Social and Cultural Rights has stated in relation to the covenant on economic, social
    and cultural rights:
    “In terms of political and economic systems the Covenant is neutral, and its principles
    cannot accurately be described as being predicated exclusively upon the need for, or
    desirability of, a socialist or capitalist system, or mixed, or centrally planned or
    laissez-faire economy, or upon any other particular approach” (UN Document E/C.
    12/1990/8).
    246
    Given that the interrelationship of the two sets of rights has long been recognized I
    consider the same could also be said that in terms of political and economic systems
    that the covenant on civil and political rights is also neutral.
    Christian Tomuschat describes how originally only one covenant, which provides the
    legal form for application, was conceived for the UDHR since both classes of rights
    were “interconnected and interdependent” (see section E of resolution 421 (V) of 4
    December 1950).
    However, it was considered that the nature of their implementation differed and it was
    eventually decided to have two covenants which was completed in 1954 (see resolution
    543 (VI) of 4 February 1952, described in following article).
    Christian Tomuschat explains: “Western nations in particular claimed that the
    implementation process could not be identical, economic and social rights ‘partaking
    more of the nature of goals to be attained’ whereas civil and political rights ‘had to be
    respected strictly and without any reservations’ (Tomuschat, 1966).
    Consequently, ethical human rights, involving both sets of rights, can also be regarded
    as neutral in terms of political and economic systems so can be adopted by
    political/religious parties as their ethical base.
    In terms of implementation the core minimums of both sets of rights without which
    involves very serious violations should be implemented within an ‘immediate
    timeframe’ or as soon as possible.
    The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has already derived many
    of the core minimum obligations of the State for economic, social and cultural rights
    which are described in the General Comments (General Comments, OHCHR).
    Between 1981 and 2004 the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which oversees
    civil and political rights, have formulated 31 General Comments on the United Nations
    Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but have not arrived at any core obligations for
    these rights because these rights have required immediate implementation (General
    Comments, 1981-2004).
    However, because civil and political rights, unlike with economic, social and cultural
    247
    rights, have been long adopted into the domestic law of the considerable majority of
    States, courts would have considerable experience in dealing with civil and political
    rights and could determine what constitutes the core minimums of the latter rights if
    necessary.

Section three chapter two Hijacking NZ human rights.

Referenda
The country seemed more controlled far more by ideology than democracy. In addition
to a failure to inform voters of important human rights truth that Governments seemed
to have little respect for the will of the people is indicated by their ignoring the results
132
of referendums.
Chris Keall describes how referendums have been ignored. He states: “Since National
introduced the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act (1993), five measures have been put to
the ballot. For better or worse, the wisdom of the mob has been ignored on all five
occasions described in Appendix 4, (Keall C. (2013)).
And voter discontent seemed reflected in low voter turnout.
In the 2014 General Election non-voters comprised 23.23% of the total enrolled (voter
turnout. (2014)).
Voter turnout was described as a near record low. Charlie Mitchell in this article states:
“Roughly a million people didn’t show up for Saturday’s election, making it one of
New Zealand’s worst turnouts in the last century”.
He adds: “An estimated 77.04 per cent of enrolled voters took part in the election,
slightly higher than the 74.2 per cent turnout in 2011, which was the worst in
percentage terms since before women got the right to vote in 1893” (Mitchell C.
(2014)).
In my experience, it was a common view, especially amongst the underclass, that it
made little difference to their lives which political party gained power. It could be
described as the neoliberal establishment versus the rest of the population and, in many
ways, the neoliberal establishment seemed to have more say in who governed than the
will of the people.
Bureaucrat’s Bill of Rights
While courts generally upheld the individual freedoms in the bill of rights the latter’s
human rights omissions enabled the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to be
bureaucratically-driven, every day, behind closed doors impacting on New Zealanders
as a virtual invisible force.
Consequently, the cause i.e. the human rights omissions, of many social problems were
hidden from New Zealanders.
133
In my view, in terms of public policy those groups whose rights were omitted such as
children’s, family rights, and the rights to individual self-determination e.g. small
entrepreneurs etc., are ignored or impeded by the bureaucrats subjecting them to gross
neglect leaving many people feeling as though they do not count and that New Zealand
no longer feels like their home.
The bill of rights when implemented behind closed-doors by the bureaucrats meant the
collectivist ideology is virtually an all pervasive, ‘invisible’ force constituting a form of
‘mind control’ because the human rights omissions are rarely ever told people.
The collectivist ideology, in my view, captures the leadership of the whole
establishment, including MPs and the mainstream media.
And, from my observation, it was very rare for anyone in the establishment to admit to
the human rights omissions irrespective of the social cost e.g. the omission of
children’s rights which, in my view, lead to major violations of children’s rights is, to
my knowledge, still not admitted to while the failure to include individual
self-determination would have helped explain the mass exodus.
Also, in my experience, New Zealanders were often told it was a weak bill of rights as
it was not entrenched i.e. the latter requires a super-majority of MPs to change it, as
originally conceived by Geoffrey Palmer, to alter the bill of rights.
Palmer presented the bill to the House as non-controversial as it was an ordinary Act of
Parliament which could be easily overturned by a majority of Parliament and that the
rights included already existed in New Zealand law.
However, Geoffrey Palmer would likely have been aware that the bill of rights would
be considered part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework which would give it a
higher status than ordinary law.
Judith Collins a recent Minister of Justice saw both the bill of rights and Treaty of
Waitangi as being a part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework.
She states: “Both the Treaty of Waitangi and human rights legislation form a part of
New Zealand’s constitutional framework. New Zealand’s constitution is not based
solely on one piece of legislation or document but rather it is to be found in a range of
134
formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices” (Judith Collins,
Minister of Justice, personal email, 6 June 2012).
Also, the New Zealand Human Rights Commissions regards the bill of rights as having
special status. It states: “Although the BORA [bill of rights] is not entrenched
legislation and it does not confer the power on the Courts to strike down inconsistent
legislation, it has acquired special status as a result of the rights it protects” (Human
Rights in New Zealand. (2010)).
And from my experience, very often amongst themselves, MPs, judges and academics
often regarded it as important constitutional law (see below).
Also as Governments often do not like to be seen violating human rights Parliament
only acted contrary to the bill about once per year (see below).
Geoffrey Palmer described the bill of rights as a Parliamentary Bill of Rights to ensure
Acts passed were consistent with the bill so there would be no erosion of individual
freedoms.
Palmer stated: “…the Bill is a Parliamentary Bill of Rights. It states that the
Attorney-General must provide a certificate with the introduction of any measure that
is contrary to the Bill of Rights” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
He also stated: “The New Zealand Bill of Rights and associated proposals for changes
to the Standing Orders will encapsulate the role of Parliament as a guardian of
fundamental rights and freedoms in New Zealand. In that sense the Bill is very much a
parliamentary Bill of Rights” (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
However, in my view, it was really a Bureaucrats’ Bill of Rights with their strict
implementation having a wide-ranging cultural impact ensuring the UN’s ‘hidden’,
collectivist agenda was executed.
There was some brief discussion of the omitted rights in the parliamentary debates.
Graeme Lee (National, Coromandel) stated that family rights, the rights of the unborn
child, the right to life, and economic and social rights were omitted (Parliamentary
Debates. (1990)).
135
While Warren Kyd (National, Clevedon) considered there are ‘glaring defects in bill.
There is no right not to associate – there is no right not to be a member of a union’.
Also, he states: “No view is taken on rights of property (and) takes no view on the
unborn child (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
However, I could find no mention made by the National Party, which is the major
supporter of the Corporations, in the parliamentary debates of certain human rights
omitted to enable the IMF’s globalization policies.
The latter include the individual right to self-determination, non-discrimination with
respect to intellectual property rights and social class and socio-economic
discrimination (the latter often allowing user-pays), duties to the community and
protection against exploitation.
And that the bill of rights had much more to do with what rights were omitted than
included was alluded to briefly in the parliamentary debates without further discussion
although, in my view, it foretold how the bill of rights would be implemented with
certain rights ‘excluded totally’.
Warren Kyd described it as the ‘sinister aspect of the Bill’. He stated: “When one starts
dealing with rights and deciding that those are proper and those that are not the
possibility arises that rights, by not being included, could be excluded totally. That is
seen as a sinister aspect of the Bill.” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
While George Gair (National, North Shore) also considered that the omission of rights
would denigrate those rights and stressed that ‘rights that are defined tend to denigrate
rights that are not defined, and they circumscribe and restrain rights that are defined’
(Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
While the Labor Minister of Justice, W.P. Jeffries, also indicated the considerable
involvement of the bureaucracy on the bill of rights. He stated: “it is a fact of life…that
much legislation comes from the machinery of the Civil Service” (Parliamentary
Debates. (1990)).
Jeffries also described the reach of the bill of rights: “A Bill of Rights of this kind has
an educative value and educative power that will guide the Government, the Civil
136
Service, and the major political parties every single day of the year” (Parliamentary
Debates. (1990)).
Apart from being a Bureaucrat’s bill of rights to fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda there seemed little reason for a bill of rights because it appeared unwanted by
New Zealanders.
In 1985, Geoffrey Palmer introduced a white paper entitled A Bill of Rights for New
Zealand which was to be entrenched e.g. require a supermajority of Parliament to
overturn it. In its interim report, the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee noted
that it received 431 submissions, of which 243 opposed the bill (56 per cent), 35
supported the bill (8 per cent) and 56 provided qualified support (13 per cent), (Hiebert
J. and Kelly J. (2015)).
Because an overwhelming majority of the submissions were opposed to an entrenched
Bill of Rights it was rewritten as an ordinary Act of Parliament. The Bill was
introduced to the House and submissions called for: 78 submissions were received of
which 23 were in support of the Bill, 23 were opposed to it, 25 did not explicitly
support the Bill but suggested amendments, and another 7 expressed neither support
nor opposition to it (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
Doug Graham (Remuera, National), in the parliamentary debate, said the public had
rejected the bill of rights and that the government had failed to hold a promised
referendum. He stated:
“When one reads the white paper on the question of whether the Bill of Rights should
be supreme law the comment in paragraph 7.4 on page 53 is interesting. (It states): “To
enact a Bill of Rights which can be overridden, either expressly or impliedly, by a
simple majority of the Government’s parliamentary supporters would be no real
advance on a present situation with respect to the protection of our basic rights and
freedoms”.
Doug Graham added: “I agree entirely with that comment” (Parliamentary Debates:
Aug 1990) and further added: “However, the Government has proposed such a Bill of
Rights. The New Zealand bill of Rights will be just another law that can be repealed or
amended by a simple majority and that does not carry the matter any further.”
137
(Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
Furthermore, Doug Graham stated: “It is not for the House simply to pass a Bill of
Rights; it is up to people to want a Bill of Rights and to vote in favor of it by way of a
referendum. However, people are not being given an opportunity to express their view
by way of referendum. To the extent that people have been able to express a view, that
view has been overwhelmingly against a Bill of Right. Unquestionably, the public has
rejected it” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
He added: “For the Government to force legislation through on such a fundamental
issue as this without going to the public by way of referendum can only mean that it
knows what the Opposition members know; that the public does not want it”
(Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
In addition, Warren Kyd saw little justification for a bill of rights. He stated:
“Opposition members are disappointed in the legislation because there has been no
great public call for a bill of rights. There has been no popular movement, and no lobby
groups have pestered for the bill” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
He added: “In most countries, bills of rights have been the result of popular movements.
In Britain, a rebellion occurred before a bill of rights was introduced. In America, a
revolution occurred before one was introduced” (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
Warren Kyd stated that ‘there was no great public call for a Bill of Rights’. And added
that: “The Bill seems to be merely the brain-child of the Prime Minister, with no great
interest group behind it” (p3453). (Parliamentary Debates. (1990)).
Janet Hiebert et al. in their book ‘Parliamentary Bills of Rights’ state: “Although New
Zealand National was united in its opposition to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Bill, it
did not provide a consistent position” (Hiebert J. and Kelly J. (2015)).
From my reading of the parliamentary debates the National Party did not seem to fully
realize that, in my view, the Labor Party intended that it was the ‘sinister side’ of the
bill of rights as described by Warren Kyd MP which was how the bill of rights would
be implemented.
I consider, despite their opposition to the bill the National Party underestimated the low
138
cunning and gross deceit of the leadership of the then Labor Party.
Colin Keating, New Zealand’s Ambassador to the UN (1993-1996) and New Zealand’s
representative when New Zealand’s performance was reviewed by the UN Human
Rights Committee, seemed to view the enactment of the bill of rights as being
politically inspired rather than being inspired by universal truth which, in my view,
such bills should be.
Keating described the bill of rights as being part of a ‘domestic political process’
reflecting ‘a particular set of cultural values’.
Colin Keating said that there had been ‘considerable scepticism on the part of the
public as to the desirability of concretizing human rights in law. A desire for flexibility
had led to overt reluctance to the permanent entrenchment of a set of principles devised
by a particular set of people at a particular time and reflecting a particular set of
cultural values’ (Summary Record. (1995)).
In addition, Colin Keating stated: “The characteristics of the Bill of Rights should be
seen in the appropriate historical context, and the reasons for its enactment were part of
a domestic political process” (Summary Record. (1995)).
Labor MP, Richard Northey (Labor, Eden), in the parliamentary debates, challenged the
view that the human rights omissions created a hierarchy of rights i.e. that the rights
included are more important than the rights excluded.
He stated: “It was said that the Bill sets down a hierarchy of rights, yet clause 28 [of
the bill of rights] states clearly that other rights and freedoms are not affected, and nor
are they. They will remain with the same status in law that they carry now”
Clause 28 of the bill of rights states that other rights and freedoms are not affected. It
states: “An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by
reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included
only in part”.
However, in my experience, the public were often told the bill of rights was ordinary
law but amongst themselves politicians, judges and academics seemed to regard it as
constitutional law which would create a hierarchy of rights.
139
And that constitutional law is more powerful than ordinary law can be seen from the
Irish experience.
On October, 2011 the Irish Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, when answering
questions about Ireland’s human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council in
Geneva recognized that ordinary law proved insufficient to protect children’s rights and
the latter needed to be included in constitutional law.
Alan Shatter reaffirmed an “absolute commitment” to hold a referendum next year to
enshrine children’s rights in the constitution. “We accept that the HSE [Health Service
Executive] has failed to deliver adequately their statutory obligation to ensure
children’s protection,” he said, adding that a proposed single new agency would
improve the situation (MacCormack R. (2011)).
Also, Colin Keating, New Zealand’s representative when New Zealand’s performance
was reviewed by the UN Human Rights Committee said that the Bill of Rights had a
‘slightly higher status’ than other law. He stated:
“As to the concern expressed regarding the status accorded to the Bill of Rights, he
said that it actually had a slightly higher status than other law, since it included a
provision requiring the Attorney-General to make a statement to Parliament regarding
any possible inconsistencies between proposed legislation and the Bill of Rights.
Accordingly, any attempt to repeal it would most likely be subject to public scrutiny,
which was not necessarily true for other laws” (Summary Record. (1995)).

Section two Chapter two Hijacking NZ Human Rights.

Hijacking of the NZ bill of rights
As I stated above I consider that the bill of rights was hijacked is virtually indisputable
and can be seen from the Parliamentary Conscience Votes Database, which describes
the voting patterns of MPs.
The latter shows that the bill of rights was passed by only 36 per cent of parliament and
that the bill of rights was ‘by and for’ a left-minority, all of them Labor MPs (Voting
Pattern. (1990) also see the appendix 2).
Of the remaining MPs involved in the conscience vote on the bill of rights 31 per cent
107
were against the bill of rights and 33 per cent were absent from the house. The 35
MPs who voted for the bill of rights were all from the Labor Party while the 30 MPs
who voted against it were all from the National Party except one from the New Zealand
First Party.
Roger Douglas, Minister of Finance in the Labor Government, who promoted
Rogernomics, which were very largely IMF global free market policies, voted for the
bill of rights seemingly aware that its human rights omissions (see the UN’s hidden
collectivist agenda described above and in chapter one in the section on the IMF)
would permit Rogernomics.
The 32 MPs who were absent from the parliament comprised 10 from National, 20
from Labor, one from United Future and one from the Progressive Coalition (It seems
to be the practice of the database to give an MP’s latest party status. Consequently, the
three MPs described in the database as being from the Act Party, which was not formed
until 1996, were, at the time of the conscience vote on the bill of rights in the Labor
Party (2) and National Party (1)).
The Labor Party’s constitutional rule 242 which requires MPs to abide by caucus
decisions may well be the reason why many Labor MPs were absent at the time of the
vote as it would likely be the only way to act in accordance with their conscience. It
certainly seems that if it was not for rule 242 the bill of rights might not have been
passed.
Little seems to have been written on rule 242 but it is occasionally mentioned in the
parliamentary debates:
Marie Hasler (NZ National, Waitakere) stated: “I accept that a Labor MP is probably a
mere delegate, a mere cypher, a mere mouthpiece, a restricted agent, and, most of all, a
servile pawn to the Labor leadership. However, Labor is not content with practicing its
scandalous rule 242 within just its own ranks; no, Labor wants to inflict this piece of
compulsory, groupthink, follow-the-leader mentality on to the whole House. It wants to
impose its regime of member obsequiousness on every other member. I find it utterly
amazing that the notion of individual conscience has become outdated. When did this
happen, exactly?” (Electoral Bill. (1997)).
108
In addition, Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays) stated: “Í remind them that
the Opposition has nothing to equate with rule 242, which states that if one votes
against the Government, or withholds a vote one is out…’ (NZBORB. (1990)).
The above statistics on the voting patterns of MPs, although would have been recorded
in Hansard (report on New Zealand Parliamentary Debates), were, in my view, very
largely hidden from the public. I came across the above database by accident on the
internet in May 2012, 22 years after the bill of rights was passed.
I did not begin promoting human rights until a year after the bill of rights was passed in
1990 but in 21 years of promoting human rights, also reading some of the New Zealand
academic literature, I had never seen these figures before. I sent them to nearly every
MP and received about 13 responses but no one disputed them.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, with Helen Clark as Deputy Prime Minister, led the fourth Labor
Government from August 1989 until September 1990 during which he engaged in
considerable reforms of the country’s legal and constitutional framework, including the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (passed on 28 August 1990 just before he retired as
PM).
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former Professor of Law, is described as the architect of the bill
of rights and was Deputy Prime Minister from 1984 to 1989, before becoming Prime
Minister. Sir Geoffrey Palmer received his knighthood in 1991, one year after the
passing of the bill of rights in 1990, while Roger Douglas received his knighthood in
1990.
Helen Clark, a former lecturer in political studies, was Deputy Prime Minister during
the period Sir Geoffrey Palmer was Prime Minister. She later became Prime Minister
serving three consecutive terms (1999 to 2008). She was chosen to Head the United
Nations Development Program in April 2009 and is now serving her second term. She
is now regarded as a leading candidate to become the first woman to become next UN
Secretary General (Campbell G. (2014)).
109
Divide and Rule
While economic globalization, under IMF globalization policies, led to the rise of the
Corporations, its parallel, political globalization, where nearly all States followed the
UN human rights agenda including its hidden collectivist agenda, led to the rise of the
liberal collectivists.
Although for nearly all New Zealanders the rise of the liberal collectivists seemed very
much ‘under the radar’, in the shadows of the Corporations.
While almost simultaneously with the liberal collectivists’ rise to political power in
1984, I believe I witnessed while working for a government department the creation of
an ‘old boys and girls network’, which seemed to reflect the interests of the liberal
collectivists, within the bureaucracy.
I consider political globalization meant that the leaderships of the global establishment,
almost without exception, were ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda.
In my view, it is likely that it was the rapid pace of change (see blitzkrieg policies in
New Zealand below) as well as a ‘divide and rule’ (see below) which contributed to the
minds of left activists and academics seeming to ossify in the Cold War when the
discontented left-wing promoted anti-capitalism and anti-Corporations.
In my view, these left activists are describing a time when States still had much
sovereignty but with the onset of political globalization nearly all States gave up
significant sovereignty and abided by the UN’s human rights agenda, with its hidden
collectivist ideology, which also permitted States to execute the IMF’s economic
globalization policies.
The latter is evidenced by nearly all State constitutions permitting the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which also enabled States to pursue the IMF’s globalization policies
(see chapter one).
While the left-activists, given their Cold War perspective, could understand economic
globalization when seeing the rise in global power of the Corporations they, almost
110
without exception, failed to see or understand the rise of the liberal collectivists under
political globalization.
Activists often express concern about the effects of the Corporations on climate change,
the decimation of the animal population, environmental damage and exploitation.
I consider while the Corporations may well be the direct or immediate cause of many
of these problems the real, although distant cause, are what can be loosely called the
‘rules of the game’ e.g. international human rights law, as determined at the United
Nations.
Consequently, I consider that what such a very large number on the left fail to see is
that the Corporations and capitalism simply obey the ‘rules of the game’ as does the
rest of the establishment and consequently are often merely a symptom rather than a
cause of such problems.
In my view, it is hard to see how capitalism can be blamed when the ‘rules of the game’
are determined at the UN where the global free market and global exploitation
undermined creative growth and the domestic free market.
Consequently, it is hard to take seriously left-wing anti-Corporation protests when they
also promote the UN’s human rights agenda, allowing the ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda,
which permits the activities of the Corporations.
The ethical approach to human rights would, however, limit the free market because all
must be ensured, at least, all the core minimum human rights in the Universal
Declaration and consequently there can be no exploitation.
However, the ethical approach would also protect capitalism in the long-term by
enabling individual self-determination which would result in a more competitive
domestic free market, a very important source of creativity, new ideas and the
development of human knowledge.
I consider that a more competitive domestic free market would likely mean if big
business fails there would be alternatives so it would be much less likely that any
business becomes ‘too big to fail’ and so requiring State assistance.
111
In addition to the failure to see the effects of political globalization the creation, in my
view, of a ‘divide and rule’ hid the reality from the discontented.
I consider, a far-right political party, the Act Party, founded in 1994 by former Minister
of Finance in the Labor Government, Roger Douglas, and joined by two other former
Ministers of the Labour Government in the 1996 elections was in order to create a
‘divide and rule’ to hide the hijacking and political globalization, (ACT. (2008)).
The former Labor Ministers were Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble and Ken Shirley.
They had all voted for the bill of rights almost certainly seeing that the rights omitted
permitted States to implement IMF globalization policies, which they strongly
advocated as Rogernomics.
In my view, social discontent was channeled by the liberal collectivists, who dominated
the establishment and the mainstream media, as well as their many supporters, towards
Roger Douglas, the Act Party, the Corporations and the one percent of the wealthy.
The modus operandi of the liberal collectivists was often to focus on lifting up the
lower functioning, often victims of social class discrimination, while ignoring and
isolating the higher functioning who are perceived as a threat to this social class which
is also very concerned to hide their hegemony.
I witnessed the modus operandi of the liberal collectivists most clearly in the
Occupation protests where those in control, from my observation closely linked with
the Green Party, seemed more concerned with deflecting discontent away from the
hijacking and political globalization than utilizing the more intelligent to achieve a
successful outcome.
In the group discussions of the Occupation the young, bright protestors were often just
ignored leaving them bewildered instead the controllers wanted to hear from those who
were less bright and articulate.
In my view, the Occupation protestors would have made a bigger impact if they had
stood for human rights e.g. perhaps including equal rights and economic, social and
cultural rights, which had been excluded in the bill of rights. I took the opportunity to
publicly address the protestors of this on various occasions and although some of the
112
younger, brighter protestors were interested, those in control simply ignored it (Ravlich
A. (2011)).
Consequently, from my observation, apart the channeling of discontent towards the
Corporations away from the left-establishment I consider no significant change was
sought.
Some of those individuals most prominent and best known to New Zealanders who I
consider were involved in channeling public discontent toward the Act Party and the
Corporations were Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, described by the university directory
as ‘one of New Zealand’s best known critical commentators on issues of globalization
and neoliberalism’ (Auckland University. (2015)) and John Minto described as a
veteran socialist activist.
In my view, this domestic ‘divide and rule’ reflects what I consider to be a ‘divide and
rule’ at the global level between the UN General Assembly, which created the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, and the IMF, which determines globalization policies,
described in chapter one.
What I consider was very socially and psychologically destructive in New Zealand,
perhaps more so than in other neoliberal countries, was the rapid pace in which
neoliberalism was implemented with Roger Douglas, the 1984 Labor Government’s
Minister of Finance, describing the implementation of the neoliberal policies in 1984 as
a ‘policy blitzkreig’ (Hayward B. (2012)).
I was convinced, as one of those near the bottom, that it was meant that no one would
be able to retain their sanity and be articulate enough to be able to describe what
happened to themselves and others. While the implementation of policy may have
seemed like the use of a ‘hammer’ at the top it translated into a ‘sledge hammer’ when
impacting on those at the bottom.
Philippa Mein Smith states that Rogernomics has been likened to a ‘blitzkreig’ because
the reforms proceeded so fast and extensively, with all the zeal of a crusade (Smith P.
(2012)).
History New Zealand states that ‘nowhere else were they [neoliberal policies]
113
implemented with the speed and zeal shown by Douglas and his supporters’ and adds
that ‘New Zealand was quickly reinvented as one of the most free-market economies in
the industrialized world’ and ‘the agenda came thick and fast: deregulation,
privatization, the sale of state assets, and the removal of subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks
and price controls (NZ History. (1986)).
An example of the ‘policy blitzkreig’ described by Roger Douglas was, in my view, the
‘well-known’ severe benefit cuts of April 1991 which were implemented about eight
months after the bill of rights was passed and which I consider would have been the
major cause of the present virtually ‘permanent’ underclass. In my view, this heralded a
society based much more on exploitation rather than creativity i.e. furthering the
cultural cleansing of individual self-determination.
If economic, social and cultural rights had been included in the bill of rights I think the
severe benefit cuts could have been successfully challenged in the court.
For example, Paul Hunt suggests the use of negative judicial review. He states: “In
April 1991, the New Zealand government introduced cuts in welfare. According to the
Human Rights Commission, the reduced rates brought some beneficiaries below the
Treasury’s own “income adequacy” level. If New Zealand law provided that
individuals have a right to an adequate standard of living, why could a court not
declare that the cuts were unlawful because they violate this right?” (Hunt P. (1996)).
In what began my human rights activities I protested the impending benefit cuts in
April 1991 by throwing a brick through the window of the Christchurch employment
service because I considered the benefit cuts violated the right to a reasonable standard
of living included in the economic, social and cultural rights which New Zealand had
ratified under international law.
While I got nation-wide television coverage the reasons for my protest, which also led
to court appearances, were not told the public.
Because of my protest the New Zealand Labor Party set up a Parliamentary Select
Committee under Christchurch Central MP, Lianne Dalziel, to look into my activities
and the concerns of residents regarding the benefit cuts.
114
In addition, the Human Rights Commission, who I was in contact with, in their
submission to the Finance Bill stated that ‘the Bill may breach the United Nations
covenants to which New Zealand is a signatory. In the view of the Human Rights
Commission, New Zealand may be in breach of its United Nations obligations’
(NZHRC. (1991)).
Another area which in my view would have made New Zealand’s experience of
neoliberalism far harder than in other countries was the extraordinary prominence
given to Maori tribalism.
I consider the rise of the Maori culture reflected the promotion of collectivist cultures
by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda and was driven by the dominant collective, the
liberal collectivists, who appeared to be the major supporters of Maori tribalism.
If the measure of modernity is the Universal Declaration in my view the promotion of
Maori tribalism was designed to take the country backwards attempting to eliminate
the individual freedoms of Western culture, part of New Zealander’s British heritage, to
ensure no challenges to the liberal collectivists.
New Zealand changed majorly from a country which promoted self-help and its ethnic,
largely business, communities to a country which promoted dependency and a
repressive Maori culture.
Upward mobility seemed based largely on descent and affirmative action rather than
merit which meant it was very difficult to better oneself because of one’s hard work
which is virtually the only hope those lower on the lower social scale have of
advancement.
I consider the dominance given a dependency and, in my view, a repressive tribal
culture, would have contributed to many of the best and brightest leaving the country
including the more independent Maori as indicated by one in six Maori living in
Australia (Hamer P. (2009)).
While some considered many left the country was because they were racists I consider
for many the real reason was the affirmative action policies, particularly for Maori and
women, which meant that the ‘best and brightest’ were subjected to the constant
115
humiliation of having those of lesser ability being preferred.
Geoffrey Palmer’s biographer considered that it was Geoffrey Palmer’s experience
when studying in America of the slums of South Chicago with its racial divisions
which persuaded him that ‘New Zealand could not afford to have a permanent
underclass defined by race’ (Richards, 2012).
Geoffrey Palmer as Deputy Prime Minister when the New Zealand Labor Party won
the 1984 election declared that the Labor Government would ‘investigate Maori
grievances that had arisen since 1840, when Maori and the Crown had signed the
Treaty of Waitangi to regulate colonization’ (Richards R. (2012)).
The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act provided a process for addressing
long-standing grievances, especially those involving the Crown’s historic seizures of
Maori Land resulting in Maori receiving compensation for on-going claims (Richards.
2012)).
I consider the special privileges accorded Maori tribalism was often justified by New
Zealand being designated as a bicultural society because the Treaty of Waitangi was
increasingly considered the founding document of New Zealand which establishes a
partnership between the Maori tribal leaders and the Crown (Fatimah. (2015)).
Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, describes the Treaty of Waitangi as a
written agreement made in 1840 between the British Crown (the monarch) and more
than 500 Māori chiefs. After that, New Zealand became a colony of Britain and Māori
became British subjects (Te Ara. (2012)).
The latter partnership led to New Zealand being described as a bicultural society giving
Maori a special status but in reality New Zealand is a multicultural society as seen in
the demographic profile.
New Zealand Demographics Profile 2014: the population is 4,401,916 (July 2014 est)
of which 71.2 percent are European, 14.1 percent are Maori, 11.3 percent are Asian and
7.6 percent are Pacific people, (index mundi. (2014)).
In addition to addressing Maori grievances the major aim of the New Zealand
government appears to have been to eliminate disparities between Maori and
116
non-Maori. In 2002 Tim Caughley, New Zealand’s representative at the UN stated that
the fourth periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee ‘highlighted a number of
significant developments……in particular, in the process of settling claims under the
Treaty of Waitangi and the elimination of disparities between Maori and non-Maori
(UNHRC. (2002)).
Consideration of the Treaty was built into the law-making process in New Zealand.
“All Ministers seeking approval to introduce bills into Parliament must indicate
whether they were consistent with the principles of the Treaty. The Treaty was also
incorporated into a range of domestic legislation. Regardless of whether a particular
Act referred to the Treaty, the Courts had interpreted relevant legislation in a manner
consistent with the Treaty whenever possible” (UN Human Rights Committee. (2010)).
Affirmative action for Maori was one way special privileges were bestowed on Maori
tribalism. Section 19(2) of the bill of rights allowed for such affirmative action. It
states: “Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons
or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue
of Part II of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination” (the latter
was also used to ensure affirmative action for women).
The reduction of disparities between Maori and Pakeha (the Maori name for Europeans)
higher on the social scale was evident politically and economically.
Such affirmative action certainly appears to have benefited Maori politically as seen in
parliament where the proportion is now 20.7% of Parliament are Maori. This compares
to Maori being 14.1% of the overall population and just 11.3% of the adult population.
Farrar states that ‘that is a very significant over-representation’ (Farrar D. (2014)).
In parliament Maori were permitted two political parties chosen on racial grounds: The
Maori Party (July 2004 to present) and the Mana Movement (April 2011 to 2014). By
contrast if other racial groups did likewise, in my view, they would be regarded as
racist.
While Maori (and women) benefited from affirmative action in the bureaucracy
(Ravlich A. (2008)).
117
In 2001 the asset base of the Māori economy was estimated to be worth $9.4 billion,
this figure rose to $16.5 billion by 2006, and is now estimated it was worth at least
$36.9 billion in 2010 (Maori economy. (2015)).
Disparities at the lower social levels were also reduced with many Europeans, as the
gap between rich and poor increased, being reduced to living similar lifestyles to Maori,
which from my observation treat a significant number as virtual outcasts (see below),
and thereby reducing disparities.
Few people would regard Pope Francis as racist (although because of the racial
sensitivity that exists in New Zealand there may be some) yet during his visit to Africa
he expressed what I consider is a modern view of tribalism when he told the youth at
the Safaricom Stadium in Kenya that ‘tribalism destroys’.
He stated: “Tribalism can only become with an ear, a heart and hand. If you do not
dialogue with each other, if you do not listen to each other, then you are going to have
divisions like dust; like a worm that grows in society,” he said.
The Pope noted that ‘only dialogue between the different groups would resolve the
issues of concern’. Pope Francis asked all those attending the meeting at the stadium to
stand up and hold hands saying this signified unity against tribalism.
He concluded: “To overcome tribalism is a daily endeavor, you have to listen to others,
it is the work of opening your heart to others and it is the work of your hands,” (Groin.
(2015)).
In my view, non-discrimination on the grounds of race was so strictly adhered to that
there was a considerable reluctance by New Zealanders to discuss the deficiencies of
Maori culture and how that might well have contributed to any increased racism.
In my view, racism is very largely used as a political weapon. Anyone who criticizes
Maori is liable to be ‘labelled’ racist whereas, in my view, people’s concerns have
much more to do with their tribal culture rather than their skin color.
And this is indicated by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, driven by the liberal
collectivists, which, in my view, seeks to promote collectives the aim being, in my view,
to acclimatize New Zealanders to living under repression in a future totalitarian society
118
which the adoption of neoliberal absolutism would almost certainly involve.
In my view, the promotion of totalitarian and repressive cultures also suit the class
interests of the liberal collectivists by enabling their continued dominance by ensuring
obedience and removing dissent.
In my personal view, as ‘evil’ rises in the world e.g. in my view, the creation of
neoliberal absolutism on 10 December 2008, so often do the fortunes of the collectives,
including Maori tribalism.
The sensitivity of tribal Maori regarding their own failings could also evoke threats of
violence on their part which would deter many New Zealanders from having such
discussions with Maori.
From my observation in New Zealand the collectives, including tribal Maori, to a
considerable extent link forces to execute the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
There also seems little distinction made between racial and cultural differences. For
example, to dislike another culture does not amount to racism. The latter occurs when
an individual is treated unfairly because of their color while a dislike of a repressive,
dependency culture, which is how I see Maori tribalism, is, in my view, as legitimate as
a dislike, even hate, for communism or fascism.
Rather than cultural respect I consider a better term is cultural tolerance. In my view,
there is always something that one can find good about another culture which is
sufficient to ‘get by with people’ while individuals all have ethical human rights which
need to be respected.
Maori tribalism does have a spiritual tradition which means it is much less prone to the
profound arrogance of the secular, liberal collectivists which I described in my article,
‘Profound arrogance at the UN’ (cited in chapter one) where there is also a discussion,
including Maori tribalism, with an Islamic Associate Professor of Law from Pakistan.
Also, what is rarely ever discussed in mainstream New Zealand is that Maori
discriminate amongst their own people on the grounds of Whakapapa, or family
lineage, which is permitted by the exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of
birth, which includes descent, from New Zealand’s human rights law.
119
Such discrimination, together with the social class discrimination that exists in New
Zealand, may help explain why, from my observation, many Maori seem virtual
outcasts, as if for some it is their destiny to live their lives sleeping and begging on the
streets.
While not exclusively Maori begging on the streets, from my observation, they make
up by far the majority in Auckland, at least. By contrast I see few Pacific Islanders
begging on the streets.
In my view, as was the case with professional, middleclass women and the liberal
collectivists both groups favored by social class discrimination, professional,
middleclass Maori would have been favored according to Whakapapa.
Non-discrimination on the grounds of birth seems to apply particularly to Maori. Hiri
Mead states: “In te ao Mäori, Whakapapa underpins the whole social system.
Classification by whakapapa establishes eligibility in tribal matters. It legitimizes
participation in hapü affairs and opens doors to kinship privileges and to iwi assets
(Mead H. (2003)).
However, in my view, affirmative action is really meant for those who have suffered
the worst forms of discrimination who are often found lower on the social scale
consequently I consider favoring those higher on the social scale by the exclusion of
non-discrimination with respect to birth cannot be in ‘good faith’ which is required by
Section 19(2) of the bill of rights.
Tribal Maori, generally, seem to fail to ‘pull their weight’ if the development of human
knowledge is used as a measure and this seems also to be largely due to the cultural
cleansing of individual self-determination which seems intrinsic within Maori tribalism
i.e. in my view, independent thinkers would be regarded as a threat to the Maori elite.
Yet, I consider, in my personal view, the pursuit of knowledge can also be very much a
spiritual pursuit as it gets closer to God’s Universal Truth.
Failure in terms of the development of human knowledge is indicated by lack of
educational attainment. In 2013 in terms of having NZEA level 2 qualifications when
leaving school 87 per cent of Asians had this level of qualification, 80 per cent of
Europeans/Pakeha, 39.9 per cent of Pacific Islanders and 28.8 per cent of Maori
120
(Tapaloeao V. (2014)).
Individual self-determination requires both survival rights and self-help rights but the
latter seems very lacking at the lower social level with Maori becoming ever more
trapped in dependency which is indicated by their dependency on benefits being far
higher when compared to Pacific people, who originate from the Pacific Islands.
The benefits received by Pacific people far more closely correlate with their percentage
of the population than do Maori. At the end of December 2012 there were 109,000 on a
Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB). Maori, who comprise 14.1 percent of the
population, make up 42.8 per cent of those on the DPB. By contrast, 10.1 per cent of
Pacific people are on the DPB and make up 7.6% of the population.
Those on invalids Benefits numbered 84,000 of which 22.7 per cent were Maori (14.1
percent of the population) and 5.1 per cent were Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population).
Those on sickness benefit numbered 61, 000 of which 28.1 per cent were Maori (14.1
percent of the population) and 6.6 per cent were Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population).
Those on the unemployment benefit totaled 54, 000 of which 38.8 per cent were Maori
(14.1 percent of the population) and 8.9 per cent Pacific people (7.6 percent of the
population) (Benefit Fact Sheets. (2012)).
In addition, in terms of Maori self-help Te Puni Kokeri describes self-employment rates
for Maori are approximately half those of most other ethnic groups (Te Puni Kokiri.
(2007)).
And that there seems to have been little change over the past eight years is indicated by
a report released in March 2015 on Māori entrepreneurialism by the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment which finds that about 10 percent of Māori are
self-employed or are employers compared with about 20 percent for the general
population. The report is based on data taken from the 2013 census (Radio NZ.
(2015)).
Having lived in the Auckland CBD for many years I can only remember one business
121
owner being Maori.
Māori ethnic population in the Auckland Region total 137,133 which is 24.3 percent of
New Zealand’s Maori population (QuickStats. (2013)).
I attribute the lack of involvement of Maori in small business as due very largely to
tribalism as, from my observation, many seem to seek to share in any profits made by
those exceedingly few who attempt to start up their own business.
However, inability to follow their dreams and set up in small business effectively cuts
out numerous opportunities for Maori so it is not surprising that at times of high
unemployment they often have recourse to drugs and crime which would very likely
increase racist views in the general population whereas, in my view, it is best seen as
indicating a cultural problem rather than a problem due to race.
While also from my observation some Maori criminality seems to have political
overtones e.g. a challenge to the Pakeha system seems sometimes to be a source of
mana in the tribe.
Social problems involving Maori are virtually always considered to be due to racism
while no mention is made of the deficiencies of tribalism.
For example, a recent UN report highlighted the over-representation of Maori in prison.
Maori make up 50% of the population in jail, despite accounting for just 15% of all
New Zealanders.
Rather than tribalism the cause is seen as being due to the State and institutional
racism.
Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox says researchers have been talking about
discrimination in the court system for a long time.
“Nobodies listened to that for many years, and I think it helps when the UN puts a bit
of light on it because then we get a bit of action. (Walker N. (2015)).
However, Geoffrey Palmer, perhaps anticipating high rates of imprisonment given the
underclass created by the bill of rights (see below), seemed to ensure that the bill of
rights provided more than adequate protections for criminal offenders with ‘search,
122
arrest and detention’ comprising 7 human rights out of a total of 20 human rights in the
bill of rights.
And there has also been public concern that the bill has been too lenient on criminal
offenders. The New Zealand delegate, Colin Keating, told the UN Human Rights
Committee: ” Most of the early jurisprudence since the adoption of the Bill of Rights
had related to criminal procedural issues, and had caused considerable public alarm, for
the Bill of Rights was perceived as having created more loopholes for defendants in
criminal cases” (UN Human Rights Committee. (1995)).
While I consider Maori have every right to believe in tribalism ethical human rights
requires that all individuals, including those in collectives or tribes, have a duty to the
community.
The latter includes not violating the ethical human rights of others which, for example,
criminality often can. New Zealanders, in my view, would be justified in requiring
some form of compensation from Maori for such violations of ethical human rights.
However, first, in my view, the omitted rights need to be included in the bill of rights
so Maori are given a choice (see below).
It is well-known, but little spoken about, that many Maori outside of their elite
benefited little, or not at all, from the compensation for Maori grievances and, from my
observation, the existence of Maori political parties did not seem to alter this situation.
In my view, much good will has been shown to Maori by New Zealanders but, I
consider, this can be taken too far. For example, tribal Maori seem to be seeking special
status in perpetuity by including the Treaty of Waitangi in a constitution.
The latter could allow them to avoid the arduous task of thinking for oneself and
self-help, often involving challenging elites, and sharing the burden of the development
of human knowledge.
In December 2010, the terms of reference of a major Constitutional review was decided.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Affairs Minister, Pita Sharples, said the
review would cover issues such as the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral
term, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New
123
Zealand needs a written constitution.
A New Zealand academic of Maori, Irish and French descent (it is generally recognized
that the great majority of Maori are of mixed descent) Dr Brian McDonnell believes the
pendulum has swung too far in redressing Maori grievances.
Dr Brian McDonnell, a senior lecturer in film studies at Massey University explains it
well. He states: “It has been the move to enshrine the Treaty of Waitangi in a written or
more formalized constitution that I feel should be the ‘bridge too far’ for well-meaning,
reasonable, moderate people, both Maori and Pakeha, to say ‘enough’.
Dr McDonnell believes such a constitution will trap Maori in a “suffocating
self-definition as in need of special pleading and a special status”. He believes personal
advancement should be the result of merit and not the consequence of gender, ethnicity
or socio-economic status.
“Constitutionally, we cannot have two types of citizenship, two groups of citizens
depending on your ethnic group – one made up of people like myself who Whakapapa
back to iwi and hapu and those who don’t. “The order in which your ancestors arrived
as migrants, settlers to this country cannot give you a constitutional status that is
different from anyone else.
“To embed this in some permanent way is intolerable. People who are born here
belong to the land equally. “We are at a risky time in our nationhood and are like a boat
being rowed by people looking fixedly towards the past” (Vaughan R. (2013)).
Human rights seems to have been side-lined in the Key Government’s Constitutional
Review. The Constitutional Advisory Panel to oversee the review consists of 12
appointees whose biographical information show that none have had a human rights
background (Advisory Panel. (2011)).
The constitutional review comes at a time when many of New Zealand’s ‘best and
brightest’, who would best be able to hold the government to account on the subject,
have joined the mass exodus from the country.
An Independent Maori Constitutional Working Group, convened by Professor Margaret
Mutu (Ngati Kahu) and its Chairperson is Moana Jackson (Ngati Kahungunu/Ngati
124
Porou), was set up.
Jackson states: “The issue is not how the Treaty might fit into a constitution but how a
constitution might be based upon the Treaty,” (Independent Constitutional Working
Group. (2011)).
However, to my knowledge, Maori are not being informed of the benefits that would
accrue to them if omitted human rights were included in New Zealand’s bill of rights.
These omitted human rights would automatically be included in the Treaty of Waitangi.
Article the third of the Treaty of Waitangi states: “In consideration thereof Her Majesty
the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and
imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects” (Treaty of Waitangi.
(1840)).
As would be expected, if you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the inclusion of the omitted human rights would of great benefit to both
Maori and Pakeha.
In my view, the poor should have a voice of their own in the mainstream media so they
can inform/influence the democratic majority. Maori could then hold their elite to
account as well as demand a share in the compensation.
A voice in the mainstream media would require no forms of discrimination such as
social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of birth should exist
which allow the mainstream media to exclude the voices of the poor.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the rights to individual self-determination and economic,
social and cultural rights could be of assistance to more entrepreneurial and creative
Maori wishing to follow their dreams. For instance, some of the compensation given
Maori could be used to help such independent Maori to help themselves as well as
perhaps employ other ‘outcasts’.
The inclusion of omitted rights would, in my view, help set many Maori (and Pakeha)
free – from the streets, crime, drugs, dependency, and enable them, with greater
independence, to follow their dreams e.g. aspire to small business. It would seem likely
that being able to follow their dreams would provide added motivation to Maori at
125
school to achieve educationally.
While I consider it would take a very brave Maori to challenge their elite by claiming
such rights, in my view, they should be included to provide a choice and necessary
support to any possibly ‘lone’ individual in their fight.
Also, in my view, it would also give the long suffering ordinary New Zealanders hope
that Maori tribalism will not be a burden in perpetuity.
However, in my opinion, New Zealanders have partly themselves to blame because I
consider they are too soft in their dealings with Maori who, while they may not like it,
would respect a tougher approach.
For instance, I consider Maori constitutional aspirations to include a collectivist Treaty
of Waitangi in a constitution amounts to cultural warfare and New Zealanders need to
protect their Western culture which emphasize individual rights.
Such an underlying cultural war, although much more covert than overt, seems part of
collectivism, including Maori tribalism.
In addition, New Zealanders still seem to have a strong cultural attachment to Britain
which is a leader of Western culture.
The latter cultural attachment is indicated in the recent flag debate where New
Zealanders preferred to retain the flag with the union jack reflecting its British heritage
by 56.6 per cent to 43.2 per cent (NZ Flag. (2015)).
New Zealanders are constantly being told that the Treaty is the foundational document
of New Zealand. But an important historical fact which I discovered but, as is very
likely the case with nearly all other New Zealanders, have never heard mentioned
before is that the English laws, including ‘imperial laws’ such as the UK Bill of Rights
1689 and the Magna Carta 1297 (as well as English common law rights), came into
force in New Zealand, on the 14th January, 1840, predating the signing of the Treaty of
Waitangi, on the 6th February 1840, by 23 days (English Laws. (1908)).
The above imperial laws are still in effect in New Zealand (see Imperial Laws
Application Act 1988).
126
Palmer stated in the Parliamentary debate on the bill of rights: “The rights contained in
the Bill [bill of rights] are those that, generally speaking, are already considered to be
part of our law, either in statute or in common law. They date back to the Magna
Charter, and to the [UK] Bill of Rights of 1689. They also reflect New Zealand’s
obligations under international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.” (Bill of Rights Bill. (1990)).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often described as ‘A Magna Carta for
all humanity, Human Rights for All’ (DPI. (1997)).
The Magna Carta is said to establish the rule of law. Fiona Crichton states: “Heralded
as the beginning of English constitutional law….it deals with the relationship of the
Crown and the Church, and the Crown and common people…. The Charter also
referred to certain matters of individual liberty such as freedom of movement while
identifying the concept of majority rule in decision making” (Crichton F. (2010)).
Crichton states that the Bill of Rights 1689 goes further than the Magna Carta: “The
bill went further than setting out the relationship of the Crown to parliament in that, in
part, it identified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty…..The Bill established the
rights of citizens to petition the Crown, declared that the election of Members of
Parliament should be free and identified the notion of Parliamentary privilege, that
freedom of speech in Parliament should not be questioned in any place outside of
parliament, effectively protecting Members of Parliament from defamation
proceedings” (Crichton F. (2010)).
The Bill of Rights 1689 is described as a predecessor of the United States Constitution,
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European
Convention on Human Rights (Bill of Rights 1689. (1995-2016)).
Consequently, from my research, historically, human rights are the foundation of New
Zealand not the Treaty of Waitangi.
Also, while many New Zealanders have, at time of war, been prepared to die to protect
their ‘way of life’, including human rights, it is very much doubted New Zealanders,
even Maori, would be prepared to die for the Treaty of Waitangi.
127
The ethical human rights approach promoted in this book (see chapter four), if reflected
in New Zealand human rights law, and parliamentary sovereignty could coexist.
The ethical approach would require a very firm ‘human rights bottom-line’ – the core
minimum obligations of the State with respect to both civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights which could be included in a New Zealand Ethical
bill of rights and be entrenched and made supreme law.
The Ethical Bill of Rights would include all the human rights presently omitted from
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including those omissions which permit the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
But parliament could retain sovereignty when dealing with the higher levels of human
rights and this would reflect the views of the political parties chosen by the democratic
process.
Embarking on such a new direction for the country may attract many New Zealanders
back. Kea New Zealand, which conducts a five-yearly ‘census’ Every Kiwi Counts
2011, found in their on-line survey of over 15,000 New Zealanders living offshore that
27% of respondents are currently looking for jobs in New Zealand for themselves or
others (Kea NZ. (2011)).
Kea New Zealand Global CEO Dr. Sue Watson says of the results: “Our overseas
respondents are not only searching for employment in New Zealand, they are also
seven times as likely as those living here to have a post-graduate qualification. These
results are showing us there is a real opportunity to reconnect with this talent pool of
global Kiwis for the benefit of the New Zealand economy.”
Also, the survey shows nearly 46% of overseas-based Kiwis in the survey report that
they earn over NZ$100,000 per annum while one in five (21%) aged over 50 earn more
than NZ$200,000 per annum.
Dr. Watson adds: “We now know that over a quarter of overseas New Zealanders are
actively looking for jobs for themselves or others in New Zealand, so there is a large
connection and communication job to be done if we are to entice those Kiwis looking
to return home” (Kea NZ. (2011)).
128
Adopting ethical human rights, which includes ethical ‘bottom-up’ development would
effectively ‘turn New Zealand around’ from an emphasis on big business to an
emphasis on the small entrepreneur. While the inclusion of individual economic, social
and cultural rights would also take it forward.
Ethical human rights would enable individual self-determination, seeking of truth,
hopes and dreams, requires both sufficient ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’.
Furthermore, if affirmative action is regarded as a way of compensating those who
have suffered the worst forms of discrimination (see below) this could also assist those
following their dreams who may also employ other ‘outcasts’.
Such a new course for the country could encourage many New Zealanders to return and
invest in small/medium business.
In June 2010 after making a stand on principle I appeared in the Auckland High Court
where I told the High Court Judge, Lyn Stevens, who is now on the Court of Appeal,
that many of those at the bottom of the social scale had been ‘crushed and isolated’ due
to social class discrimination.
I called it a New Zealand Tragedy and that I had been a first-hand witness having lived
in poverty and mixing with those at the bottom of the social scale for many years. I am
convinced that no one was meant to survive with their sanity intact and able to
articulate what had taken place but I had the advantage of human rights which enabled
me to fight throughout.
After viewing some of the terrible social statistics the Judge believed my account
asking me why I had not informed New Zealand earlier (Ravlich A. (2010)).
And just as with my protest in Christchurch in 1991 the reasons for my protest was
excluded by the media. While two reporters from two major newspapers were at my
court case their news reports only reached the internet and made no mention of the
New Zealand Tragedy which I described to the court (their articles can be found at the
end of the submission, see above (Ravlich A. (2010))
In my view, the above victims of what I saw as a vicious social class discrimination
which seemed to last about 20 years should be compensated and the government
129
should publicly admit its culpability.
In my view, many of the victims of discrimination may well have suffered
‘psychological trauma’ which may later have contributed to the high levels of child
abuse.
And the children need to know when they get older what their parents had been put
through by the State. This, in my view, would facilitate forgiveness by the children as
well as self-forgiveness by the parents.
Such compensation is supported by Article 8 of the Universal Declaration which states:
“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”.
Apart from individuals seeking accountability and/or compensation one possible form
of compensation often used is affirmative action for those most severely discriminated
against and/or those with entrepreneurial talents, who I consider were also often treated
as social outcasts. The latter could employ many other victims.
In my view, accountability and compensation is required and I consider it is very
largely those responsible for the hijacking of the bill of rights such as Geoffrey Palmer
and Helen Clark who should be held to account.
I had tried on innumerable occasions to inform the public of the ‘New Zealand
Tragedy’, writing articles on the internet, making incessant use of talkback radio, had
my own show on Planet Radio (although it only reached a small largely ethnic
population) for about 18 months, wrote a book, tried on a number of occasions to
inform Helen Clark, the then Prime Minister but received no reply although I did have
some regular contact with Rosslyn Noonan, the then Chief Human Rights
Commissioner.
I even stood as a political candidate for a ‘minor, minor’ unregistered political party,
the Human Rights Party (which is also described in the above submission) in two
elections while in the last election I had my book outlining the ethical approach to
human rights as the political party’s ethical base but this also failed to reach the
130
mainstream media and consequently the democratic majority.
In my experience, unless it is reported in the mainstream media where it can reach the
democratic majority you are virtually ‘a voice in the wilderness’ i.e. you virtually do
not count.
[The Human Rights Party is an unregistered minor, minor political party initiated by
human rights activist, Anthony Van Den Heuvel, who continues to stand as its political
candidate]
A major problem I faced as an activist was the human rights ignorance of the
population. Few seemed aware that if they were discriminated against their lifestyles
would also very likely suffer.
My previous book describes how the bill of rights was very little understood by New
Zealanders (Ravlich A. (2008)).
For example, Paul Rishworth states: “The White Paper debates had shown that the bill
of rights was largely irrelevant to the concerns of ordinary working people” (Rishworth
P. and Huscrost G. (1995)).
Also, I consider the lack of human rights education of the population is a major factor
for the lack of interest.
In my view, it is apparent that people have been deliberately kept ignorant of human
rights so they are unable to see its relevance in their lives or are able to hold the State
to account.
Human rights education is required under section 5(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993
but I was personally informed by the Human Rights Commission, who have a duty to
educate people, that it has never been funded.
In 2010 New Zealand underwent a review of its human rights record by the UN Human
Rights Committee. New Zealand’s report, ‘Questions Posed on Treatment of Maori,
Asylum Seekers, Human Trafficking’, to the UN Human Rights Committee was
headed: Delegation: “We Are Determined, as a Country, to Make Human Rights
Relevant in the Daily Lives of New Zealanders and of Citizens around the World”
131
This was reiterated twice in the body of the report and Simon Power, the former
Minister of Justice, stated:
“In concluding the two-day discussion, Mr. Power emphasized that the challenge for
his and any Government was to ensure human rights were pertinent in the daily lives of
citizens and, in doing so, bolster the application of internationally-agreed rights
instruments, including the Covenant. New Zealand must work hard so that its citizens
did not believe such treaties — and discussion of their application — were the remit of
high academic and international bodies” (UNHRC. (2010)).
However, to my knowledge, since the above statements were made no such human
rights education has taken place.
The ethical approach to human rights which is advocated requires that the poor have a
voice of their own in the mainstream media so they can influence the democratic
majority. The latter was the principle upon which I stood when making the above court
appearance.
In my view, without the human rights language the poor would be very seriously
disadvantaged in a human rights world because, in my experience, the establishment
were extremely intolerant and dismissive of contrary views e.g. socialist or religious
views, but did make some allowances with respect to human rights because they like to
think they also believe in human rights.
It seems astounding that major constitutional changes are being considered while both
Pakeha and Maori have so very little understanding of human rights.
But it is also of major concern that a constitutional review is being done at a time when
many of the country’s ‘best and brightest’, who could best hold the government to
account, now live off shore.

Section One Chapter Two Hijacking NZ Human Rights

I am reposting the following section to keep the sections on the chapter on New Zealand which will follow in reasonable proximity

Chapter Two Hijacking NZ Human Rights to
implement UN’s ‘hídden’ collectivist agenda
Introduction
I consider it is virtually indisputable that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was
hijacked ‘by and for’ a left-minority of Members in Parliament and passed by only 36
per cent of MPs.
In my opinion, the bill of rights was pursued with low cunning and gross deceit which
in another era, and if the public had been fully informed, may have led to a revolution.
The bill of rights, which omits more than half the human rights in the Universal
Declaration, and permits the United Nation’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda described in
chapter one, was passed under the Fourth Labor Government (the hijacking of the bill
of rights is described in detail in the next section).
In my view, the left-minority are liberal collectivists, a social class often including
academics and bureaucrats, whose existence is permitted by social class discrimination,
but whose rise to dominate left politics was largely due to the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which came into effect at the onset of political globalization.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, driven by the liberal collectivists, promotes the
interests of collectives and totalitarianism and seeks to culturally cleanse the world of
individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams, often
depicted by the iconic American superhero.
Put in simple terms as an aid to understanding, collectivism can be described as where
the collective is virtually everything and the individual very largely irrelevant.
91
The UN’s collectivist agenda also permits exploitation by omission under international
law portending a global slave economy and which allows creativity to be replaced by
exploitation as a means of growth.
The human rights omissions required to fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda
also permits the IMF’s globalization (called Rogernomics in New Zealand) which
strongly favors the Corporations so also meets with the approval of right wing politics.
Perversely the UN’s collectivist agenda seeks to destroy the universal human rights
truth upon which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the
individual, is based.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda amounts to a United Nations war on truth as
defined by the Universal Declaration which the UN claims as its authority.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda, which requires human rights omissions, is
invariably reflected in State constitutions (see chapter one) as well as New Zealand’s
bill of rights act which is often regarded as constitutional.
I consider the bill of rights constitutes the ideology of the State which can more simply
be called ‘the rules of the game’ which all in the establishment must abide by (see
below).
Left and right-wing politics may differ in many ways but both agree on ‘the rules of the
game’ i.e. neoliberalism, resulting in a neoliberal establishment but also, it appears,
growing anti-establishment sentiment amongst the more independent people.
In my view, political globalization in 1984 saw the rise of the liberal collectivists to
become the dominant elite in New Zealand as well as in numerous other countries i.e. it
is the globally dominant elite.
I consider the liberal collectivists also rose to dominate the UN, the European Union
while also, in my view, the East Asia Community, including Australia and New
Zealand, which is presently being formed.
In my view, the major purpose of the bill of rights is to fulfil the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which seeks to replace individual self-determination, which is in the
92
Universal Declaration, with collective self-determination, which is not in the Universal
Declaration e.g. individual freedom of thought is replaced by collective thought.
The UN’s collectivist agenda rather than emphasizing individual rights as required by
the Universal Declaration seeks virtually the opposite by promoting the dominance of
collectives e.g. elites, the State, which includes the Corporations.
Affirmative action (see below) which enabled female and Maori professional
collectives to gain dominance also fulfilled the cultural cleansing of self-determination
with the latter ‘victims’ of discrimination replacing the ‘best and brightest’ making
upward mobility more in the nature of political appointments rather than gained by
personal effort which is virtually the only way a more independent person can progress.
Apart from the courts which generally seem to try to uphold the individual freedoms in
the bill of rights (see below), public policy permitted the human rights omissions
driven by the bureaucrats behind closed doors to result in the gross neglect of large
numbers including a significant number, who did not join the mass exodus overseas,
with lives barely worth living.
For example, children’s rights were omitted from the bill of rights which, in my view,
resulted in the gross neglect of many while the omission of the right to individual
self-determination meant that big business was strongly prioritized at the expense of
small entrepreneurs thereby favoring exploitation rather than creativity as a means of
growth.
Generally, collective self-determination, which reflects the interests of the State,
dominant elites, and the Corporations upholds and perpetuates the status quo and the
establishment, including politicians, the mainstream media, academia etc. who are all
captured by the collectivist ideology.
The collectives, the liberal collective, middleclass, professional women and
middleclass, professional Maori and the trade unions have a common cause to fulfil the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda otherwise they reflect their different political
interests.
In such a very politicized society reflecting collective self-interest there is very largely
93
only political truth with very little room for universal truth i.e. society degenerates into
a power game.
While there is a power game between the left and right wing politics both agree on ‘the
rules of the game’ i.e. neoliberalism, which I consider very largely means exploiting
the rest of society, often the more independent people.
I consider the dominance of the collectives meant individual ‘freedom of thought,
conscience, expression, belief’ was transformed into ‘collective thought, conscience,
expression and belief’.
The latter, in my view, created an overwhelming social conformity which was often
disconnected from the reality of the lives of many people outside the establishment
whose concerns were also often ignored by the mainstream media (see below).
The UN’s agenda seeks to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination i.e.
seeking of truth, hopes and dreams. That truth is not wanted in such an ideologically
controlled society is evidenced by the mass exodus from the country of the ‘best and
brightest’ (see below).
I consider the crushing of the potential of the nation is meant to create a peaceful
society devoid of any political conflict in the mainstream which may pose a threat to
the dominant collectives or the State.
For example, knowledge of the hijacking of human rights may have incited rebellion
during revolutionary times and this would very likely be initiated by the brightest New
Zealanders who more readily understand how distant causes such as constitutions can
have a devastating impact on society.
The latter may explain why the MP’s voting pattern concerning the adoption of the bill
of rights was, from my experience, very largely kept hidden (see the next section)
As described in the extreme example of the Dalits of South-East Asia (sometimes
called untouchables, also called the ‘crushed people’) in the preceding chapter of the
crushing of human potential and whose dreams often seem limited to ‘street cleaning,
manual scavenging and burying the dead’ yet have remained remarkably peaceful (see
Dalits in chapter on Bangladesh).
94
Unlike during revolutionary times e.g. the French and American revolutions of the 18th
Century, when constitutions and universal truth were of major concern these were not
revolutionary times in New Zealand and New Zealanders very largely seemed to
assume they had their human rights so their concerns revolved very largely around
commerce and money rather than any discrimination.
I consider the mainstream media hid the discontent many New Zealanders were feeling
at the bottom of society just as it did in America and Britain as evidenced by the
anti-establishment vote in the US Presidential elections and in Britain by Brexit which
also seemed to be an anti-establishment vote.
In my view, the modern day middleclass (in contrast to the post-second world war
middleclass) are very largely oblivious to totalitarianism because, while benefiting
from it, they have rarely ever experienced being on the receiving end of it while they
are themselves blinded by the ‘rock star middleclass economy’ image that New
Zealand likes to project of itself (see below).
Geoffrey Palmer, in his personal writings, when engaged in having the bill of rights
included in law, noted that he ‘found the proceedings profoundly depressing. It was
clear New Zealanders knew little how government worked and the ordinary New
Zealander did not seem to care much’ (Hiebert J. and Kelly J. (2015)).
Although this may not be surprising as there had been so very little by way of human
rights education (see below).
I consider the public were almost completely oblivious to the impact of political
globalization in the early 1980s, with its ‘hidden’ UN collectivist agenda, on the human
rights they thought they possessed.
In my view, the public were also deceived by a ‘divide and rule’ (see below) with social
discontent channeled towards the Corporations and the wealthy one percent whereas, in
my view, the real cause of the problem were those who determine ‘the rules of the
game’ as found in UN human rights instruments and the bill of rights.
In my view, ‘the rules of the game’ allow the activities of the Corporations so
discontent directed at the Corporations e.g. by the Occupation, simply addressed the
95
symptoms rather than the cause.
While I consider Corporations, which are highly privileged by the ‘rules of the game’
e.g. the global free market greatly prioritized over the domestic free market, were
largely accepting of their role as the target of discontent.
While the bill of rights seemed of little importance to New Zealanders this contrasted
with the importance attached to it by the State with Geoffrey Palmer being made Prime
Minister for about two years primarily to make constitutional changes, including
creating the bill of rights, while Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister.
The Universal Declaration consists of two sets of rights – civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights. New Zealand, like America, presently adheres to
neoliberalism which consists of only civil and political rights, as does the bill of rights,
however its many human rights omissions allow the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’.
Consequently, instead of the bill of rights being based on universal civil and political
rights truth the UN’s collectivist agenda creates a very largely collectivist ideology i.e.
neoliberalism, enabling the dominance of collectives, culturally cleansing society of
individual self-determination and permitting exploitation and the creation of
underclasses.
The UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda also allows the IMF’s globalization policies and
by permitting exploitation it strongly favors those countries best able to exploit a vast
workforce, such as China and India, with the traditionally more creative West the major
loser.
The latter had the desired effect of the UN’s collectivist agenda to culturally cleanse
society of individual self-determination because exploitation meant there was far less
need for creativity, entrepreneurial activity and the ‘best and brightest’.
In a world at war with truth the major target is self-determining individuals e.g.
independent minds seeking truth, so the major target is the West which has been the
major champions of individual freedoms and individual self-determination.
The latter is unlike, in my view, the paranoid and fanatical control of totalitarian
countries which would make the seeking of truth virtually impossible.
96
In my view, while nearly all New Zealanders seemed very largely unaware I consider
the 1984 New Zealand Labor Party was taken over by liberal collectivists replacing the
previously dominant elite, the post-second world war, liberal individualists.
I consider globalization has both economic and political dimensions. The onset of
neoliberalism and globalization in New Zealand in 1984 led to States following IMF
globalization policies, called Rogernomics in New Zealand, resulting in the rise of the
Corporations i.e. economic globalization.
However, in the shadows of the Corporations and virtually unseen by the great majority
of people, it was paralleled by political globalization, whereby nearly all States
followed the UN human rights agenda including its hidden collectivist agenda.
The global rise of the liberal collectivists to dominate the UN can, in my view, be seen
with the rise of Helen Clark, now in her second term as head of the United Nations
Development Program and considered as a leading candidate to become the first,
female, UN Secretary-General (see below).
Both left and right-wing politics benefit from the UN’s collectivist agenda which, for
example, in addition to the omitted human rights strongly favoring left-collectives and
their war on truth, also permitted IMF globalization and exploitation which strongly
favour the Corporations and their profits.
I regard the liberal collectivists, although privileged in New Zealand by social class
discrimination, permitted by the bill of rights, as largely a creation of the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda which took effect in many countries at the onset of globalization
and in 1984 in New Zealand they replaced the liberal individualists as the dominant
elite.
It meant, in my view, that virtually the whole establishment, including academia, the
mainstream media and politicians, are ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda driven by the liberal collectivists. In my view, the latter’s major
concern is to ensure obedience to ideology rather than the seeking of truth and success.
Typically, in practice, it meant helping the more dependent, lower functioning
individuals e.g. affirmative action in employment for ‘victims’, while ‘shutting out and
97
shutting down’ the more independent, higher functioning individual often the ‘best and
brightest’.
I consider for the liberal collectivists there is to be no place in society for genius,
greatness or super-heroes (or whistle blowers) especially as, from my observation, the
collectives themselves devolve into less than mediocrity with their most talented
marginalized within the collective, unable to exercise a voice and so hidden from the
public.
In my view, the liberal collectivists are extremely concerned to hide their hegemony so
image, ‘looking good’ and class interests are paramount while truth is very largely
irrelevant.
I consider the liberal collectivists, who, from my experience are a social class,
privileged by social class discrimination, consisting of many academics and
bureaucrats, including Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Helen Clark, who are the major drivers
of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda. The political representatives of the liberal
collectivists are often called left-neoliberals.
While, as stated, the right-wing e.g. the National Party, abide by the collectivist
ideology largely, it certainly seems, because the Corporations are highly favoured.
What has taken place in New Zealand since 1984 can be very largely understood as an
ideological war, with deadly consequences, between the liberal collectivists and liberal
individualists.
I consider the cultural cleansing by the liberal collectivists included removing many of
the formerly dominant liberal individualists.
In New Zealand there certainly seems to have been a fanatical pursuit of such cultural
cleansing resulting in a mass exodus from the country, including many of the ‘best and
brightest’, with an estimated one million New Zealanders now living outside the
country which has a population of about 4.6 million (see below).
I consider the mass exodus left few in the country who were sufficiently intelligent and
articulate enough to hold the government to account.
98
Consequently, mediocrity is all New Zealanders are permitted to see so they are
unaware of any enlightened leadership they could have. Such enlightened leadership
could involve the higher level of consciousness often attained when beliefs are based
on universal truth rather than ideology.
From my observation, leadership with strong character seems a rarity while affirmative
action has seen the rise of many ‘victims’ to leadership positions replacing the ‘best
and brightest’.
Whereas the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination shows that the most
discriminated against were ‘the best and brightest’ who left the country in huge
numbers (see below).
In my experience, many of the ‘best and brightest’ who remained in the country were
often isolated and their potential crushed with a significant number ending up in the
mental health and criminal justice systems, committing suicide or sometimes after
having been stigmatized living similar lifestyles to the underclass. Often, in my
experience, they felt New Zealand was no longer their home and they were essentially
social outcasts.
The liberal individualists believed that individuals through hard work and ability could
reach their full potential, and with opportunities available, including upward social
mobility, could gain their just desserts on merit.
However, this did not apply to all, with women and Maori often having insufficient
opportunities pre-1984 and the liberal individualists became to be regarded as too
individualistic i.e. lacking social responsibility.
Although the situation with respect to Maori is more complex with many adhering to a
tribal culture which I consider has not embraced modernity. For example, in my view,
it does not ‘pull its weight’ in the development of human knowledge as other modern
cultures. And the latter means much fewer employment opportunities available to
Maori (see below).
While the liberal individualists were concerned to promote individual freedom of
‘thought, conscience, expression and beliefs’ to enable ‘bottom-up’ development and
99
forge new paths into the future the liberal collectivists were concerned to promote
‘collective thought, conscience, expression and beliefs’ to enable ‘top-down’ control
and perpetuate the status quo.
In my view, many of the liberal collectivists in the left-establishment have a totalitarian
mind-set and really seek the far more extreme liberal totalitarianism which would be
created if neoliberal absolutism (see chapter one) is ever adopted.
As stated in chapter one collectivism as witnessed under Stalin, Hitler and Mao and
their mass atrocities was one of the major reasons for the creation of the Universal
Declaration with its emphasis on individual rights i.e. people are not ‘numbers’ or
expendable, and opposition to totalitarianism.
In addition, while liberals, whether collectivist or individualist, refrain from using
direct violence as a means of control they instead use gross neglect by omitting human
rights which, in my view, can often be just as deadly and involve far greater numbers
including many, with their potential crushed, living lives barely worth living.
Also, in my view, the devastating consequences of gross neglect are evidenced by the
terrible social statistics which correlate with the human rights omissions (see Appendix
One and below).
For example, more recently the high levels of domestic violence described in the
People’s Report by the Glenn Inquiry (see below) can, in my view, be largely attributed
to the omission of children’s and family rights in the bill of rights but this is rarely
spoken about yet if it involved, for example, discrimination against women and/or
Maori, the outcry would be almost deafening.
Furthermore, in my view, if it was not for the rebuilding required following the
Christchurch earthquakes New Zealand may even have achieved ‘nil’ growth a
seeming inevitable consequence, in my view, of the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination (see chapter one). The IMF states:
“The pace of New Zealand’s economic recovery is likely to remain modest. Output
growth should pick up somewhat to 2 percent in 2012 as earthquake reconstruction
spending gains pace, although the size and timing of this spending is still uncertain”
100
(IMF, 2012).
Given the seeming obsession of the considerable majority of States with economic
globalization and the Corporations while the new ideas of small entrepreneurs within
the domestic free market are minimized it may not be considered surprising that given
there are few new ideas that the West is exhibiting such low growth rates (described in
chapter one).
While under economic globalization, with exploitation permitted, it meant New
Zealand lost many jobs overseas so such globalization meant New Zealand exercised a
greater duty to help other countries instead of the prime duty of the State being to one’s
own people, as required under ethical human rights (described in chapter one, see
Donald Trump’s intention to replace globalism with Americanism).
Geoffrey Palmer is described by his biographer as ‘a believer in using the law for
social reform’ (Richards B. (2012)).
And it certainly appears that he saw the collectivist ideology requiring collective
thought and collective conscience etc. as a way to ‘socially reform’ independent
thinkers often perceived as too individualistic. In my experience, if you did not fit in
you were excluded.
From my experience the bill of rights is vastly underrated and very largely ignored by
New Zealanders who, in my view, have been led to believe, at least those that have
given it any thought at all, that it is a weak bill of rights which can be easily overridden
by a parliamentary majority although this happened only about once per year (see
below).
In fact, in my view, the bill of rights is really the ideology of the State which can be
loosely described as ‘the rules of the game’ which is in sync with many other counties
concerned to crush the potential of the nation by embarking on a war on truth and
creativity while claiming peace as being their goal.
Whereas, in my view, it is just governments and elites, having created a big gap
between the establishment and the rest, concerned to protect their dominance by
removing the threat that independent thinkers and the rest pose.
101
As described in the chapter on Bangladesh while many State leaderships may seek to
justify the removal of such threats using the draconian top-down control of neoliberal
absolutism because over the past decade and a half deaths related to terrorism had a
tenfold increase.
However, the Global Terrorism Index (2015) states that 78% of global terrorism related
deaths occurred in just five countries – Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.
While, in my view, at a massive social cost the peace objective in New Zealand seems
to have been achieved with the “Global Peace Index’ ranking New Zealand in 2010 as
the world’s most peaceful nation, for the second year running (World News. (2010)).
However, as described in chapter one, the Dalits (sometimes called the untouchables or
oppressed, crushed or broken people) of South East Asia, suffering arrested
development, have also been found to be remarkably peaceful (see chapter on
Bangladesh) but many seem to live a life barely worth living.
New Zealand has repeatedly been ranked as one of the Top 4 most peaceful countries in
the world by the Global Peace Index report published by Vision of Humanity which
compares 162 independent states and evaluates “the level of safety and security in
society, the extent of domestic or international conflict; and the degree of
militarization”.
In 2014, New Zealand was ranked the world’s fourth safest country after Iceland,
Denmark and Austria. In 2013 New Zealand was ranked third behind Iceland and
Denmark (NZEDGE. (2015)).
But rather than a peaceful society many New Zealanders (outside of the middleclass,
‘rock star’ economy, see below) are, from my observation, struggling, invariably in a
state of arrested development, with exceedingly little hope of improving themselves.
And while with many of New Zealand’s best thinkers joining the mass exodus there
may be little in the way of political violence much may have been suppressed to the
level of criminality, for example, manifesting itself in high levels of domestic violence
or angry people requiring to be subdued by high levels of medication.
Inability to reach their full potential may help explain the increasing use of
102
anti-depressants which were prescribed to 427,900 patients in the year to 30 June 2013,
representing more than a 20% increase in the last five years (Mental Health Foundation.
(2014)).
While the New Zealand Drug Foundation reports that ‘New Zealanders as a population
have some of the higher drug-use rates in the developed world, evidenced in the
2007/2008 New Zealand Alcohol and Drug Use Survey, which reports that one in six
(16.6%) New Zealanders aged 16–64 years had used drugs recreationally in the past
year’ (Drug Foundation. (2007/2008)).
It also seems the crushing of potential may also be a cause of high levels of mental
illness and the increasing number of invalids.
The Ministry of Health interviewed nearly 13,000 people for its in-depth Te Rau
Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey, released in September 2006. It
found that 46 per cent of New Zealanders will meet the criteria for having a mental
disorder at some time in their life. Some 20 per cent had a disorder in the last 12
months
Mental disorder is common in New Zealand: 46.6% of the population are predicted to
meet criteria for a disorder at some time in their lives, with 39.5% having already done
so and 20.7% having a disorder in the past 12 months. It found that 16% of New
Zealanders have thought seriously about suicide (Mental Health. (2006)).
New Zealand has 106, 910 more individuals are ‘too sick to work’ and in receipt of
sickness and invalids benefits since 1985 (‘Broken Welfare’, North & South magazine,
May 2000 reported the number was 31,090). The total number who are classed either
as sick or as invalids in June 2009 is 138,000.
In June 2009, there were about 54,000 people receiving a sickness benefit because they
were temporarily unable to work, and about 84,000 people receiving an invalid’s
benefit because they were permanently and severely restricted in their ability to work
(Social Development. (2009)).
During the Cold War people were often aware of where they stood ideologically i.e. it
was America’s freedom or Soviet communism.
103
However, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 enabled the creation
of the NZ bill of rights act in 1990 with the collectivist ideology able to be hidden,
bureaucratically-driven, behind closed doors, constituting public policy.
In my experience, people who bother to give the bill of rights any thought are usually
told, often by liberal collectivist academics, how weak it is legally because it can easily
be over-turned by a simple majority of MPs, and their focus is directed to its
effectiveness in the courts.
In my view, the creation of the bill of rights was far more about its omissions than the
rights included. While the courts may generally uphold the individual freedoms in the
bill of rights it was its cultural impact when driven by the bureaucracy where its
numerous omissions resulted in the gross neglect of many leaving the country almost
unrecognizable from the egalitarian country it once was.
For example, children’s rights were omitted resulting in very high levels of child abuse
and poverty (see below) while the exclusion of individual self-determination meant
there was little protection for entrepreneurs from bureaucratic control contributing to
the mass exodus from the country.
The promotion of a collectivist ideology behind closed doors could be described as a
means of mind control as human rights omissions, which are rarely ever admitted to,
constitute a virtual invisible force with New Zealanders unaware of the cause of their
oppression (as well as depression).
The dominance of the collectives helped ensure that individual freedom of thought,
conscience, expression and belief became collective thought, conscience etc. which,
from my observation, resulted in an overwhelming mass conformity in the
establishment. Anyone, in my view, who rose their head above the parapet was quickly
isolated.
The year 1984 can also be regarded as involving a ‘human rights trade-off’ with
perceived sexism and racism replaced by classism i.e. a class-based society, permitted
by social class discrimination while the latter together with affirmative action gave
much preference to the liberal collectivists, and professional, middleclass women and
Maori.
104
I consider the latter ‘victims’ replaced many of the ‘best and the brightest’.
This was, in part, foreseen in the late 1970s with New Zealand historian Professor
Keith Sinclair describing the view of the then New Zealand Prime Minister, Norman
Kirk, stating in his book ‘A History of New Zealand’: “Kirk saw clearly that while fear
of communism was a declining element in international politics, racism was becoming
a central issue” (Sinclair K. (1991)).
The communists of Eastern Europe, who were ideologically opposed to class
exploitation, had championed economic, social and cultural rights at the UN.
The latter rights provided a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ in these communist countries
which protected people against exploitation and helped ensure equality.
With the collapse of communism in 1989 economic, social and cultural rights and
consequently exploitation and equality became much less of a global concern.
Economic, social and cultural rights and equal rights were excluded from the bill of
rights and without a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ exploitation was permitted and an
underclass created which helped fulfil the task of the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination because creativity and entrepreneurship was in less demand.
In contrast to liberal collectivism and liberal individualism, the ethical approach to
human rights promoted in this book regards it as a duty to ensure all have, at least, all
the core minimum human rights in the Universal Declaration i.e. both individual
freedoms and individual economic, social and cultural rights, sufficient to enable
individual self-determination.
The latter enables the seeking of truth, hopes and dreams and being able to reach full
potential. If they wish, people can achieve higher levels of human rights which need to
be earned.
The ethical approach could be described as socially responsible individualism.
By contrast, the communists of Eastern Europe while providing economic, social and
cultural rights did not provide sufficient civil and political rights to enable individual
self-determination and, for example, it is well-known that dissent often led to
105
incarceration in gulags.
I consider the ethical approach, which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration, if
included in the bill of rights would eliminate the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
And if the ethical approach was reflected in international law it would lead to the
collapse of both America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism as well as
the dominance of the liberal collectivists and repressive States in the UN.
Both neoliberal variants, in my view, would have very little answer to the moral force
of the universal human rights truth upon which the ethical human rights are based.
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission came close to designating New Zealand
a ‘secular society’ but because of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda this would have
strongly favored collective interests over the more independent New Zealanders i.e. it
would have been a secularism based on politics rather than universal human rights
truth.
In my view, the UN’s collectivist agenda reflects the interests of the considerable
majority of State representatives, concerned to retain power, in the UN General
Assembly as well as, in my view, the UN bureaucracy but the Universal Declaration is
meant to guard against such opportunism especially relevant in today’s world where
totalitarianism is increasing regarded as the best means of control.
The ethical approach is secular but is firmly based on universal human rights truth so
can be regarded as reflective of the interests of all as well as, in my personal view,
reflecting God’s Universal Truth.
Ethical human rights, while secular, is often recognized as equating with the Golden
Rule (‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’) espoused by the major
religions so religious political parties could have ethical human rights as their ethical
base and so help remove the separation of Church and State.
Furthermore, I consider it self-evident that human beings are not perfect e.g. no one is
God, and that this is also the case with their laws. An important reason for believing in
God’s Universal Truth is when there is ‘no appeal on earth’ and is described by John
Locke (1689), regarded as the father of liberal rights.
106
John Locke states that when the ‘rule of reason’ i.e. the social contract, has collapsed
and there is no ‘appeal on earth’ then you can only ‘appeal to heaven’ and exercise the
‘right of resisting’ such tyranny (Locke J. (1965)).
A New Zealand Herald report described it as an ‘astonishing concession’ under
pressure from the Catholic Church that the New Zealand Human Rights Commission
agreed to remove language from a 2004 draft report that stated that New Zealand is a
secular state and that religion was only for the “private sphere.” (Turley J. (2010)).
New Zealand bishops considered that, since the Universal Declaration protects freedom
of religion, “[t]o suggest that matters of religion and belief belong only in the private
sphere undermines the right of churches to seek to influence public opinion and
political decision making.” The bishops were supported by the evangelical Vision
Network which insisted “no major religion sees itself as a privatized matter.” (Turley J.
(2010)).
Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres promised to revise the language, including
the description of New Zealand as a “secular state.” (Turley J. (2010)).
It would seem likely that some of those ‘best and brightest’ whose lives have been very
seriously damaged may seek accountability and compensation when and if the
opportunity arises and, in my view, it is very largely those responsible for the hijacking,
such as Geoffrey Palmer and Helen Clark, who should be held to account.

UN not living its beliefs.

Posted on I love my life, ‘ It’s everything Marx predicted’ Robert Kiyosaki: How can you expect capitalism to work well when it is manipulated by neoliberalism and globalization (and much worse) which strongly favors the elites. Look it is really quite simple – if a church preaches the ten commandments you expect them to live it, if America preaches the constitution you expect them to live it if the UN preaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you expect them to live it. I have posted my book for free on my blog, https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog. I have posted all sections on the UN and slowly posting the rest. Read the chapter on the UN and you will see that there are many human rights omissions to create an ‘ evil’ ideology (‘evil’ because I show people could not think for themselves or have a conscience of their own) on 10 Dec 2008 which is obviously for a New World Order which requires a form of totalitarianism in each State. But a major reason for the creation of the UDHR was to protect humanity from totalitarianism. The human rights omissions also permit the creation of neoliberalism and globalization which greatly distort capitalism creating a huge gap between rich and poor. What is needed is to expose the enormous deceit of the UN. I promote ethical human rights which is firmly based on the UDHR and has no human rights omissions and would replace the UN’s New World Order. It takes courage to stand up to the powerful elites that support the latter. Riding the world of the One World Government would also rid the world of Agendas 21 and 30 as well as the Great Reset.

Section Six Chapter One – UN’s hidden collectivist agenda.

IMF
The IMF describes its ‘primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international
monetary system—the system of exchange rates and international payments that
enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with each other’ (IMF. (2014)).
However, I consider a major reason for the existence of the IMF is that it enables a
‘divide and rule’ so the UN General Assembly is not seen to be directly involved in
replacing the right to individual self-determination, which is in the Universal
Declaration, with the right to collective determination, which is not in the Universal
Declaration.
In my view, it means the target of discontent, for example, by academics, the
anti-globalization and Occupy movements, often includes the IMF and America’s veto
power, rather the UN itself and the general assembly and its ‘hidden’ collectivist
agenda.
The UN General Assembly largely determines much public policy for State sectors i.e.
the human rights agenda, while the IMF is very largely concerned with private sectors
and globalization.
At the domestic level, in my view, this also allows the liberal collectivists, who, in my
view, also control the mainstream media (although owned by the Corporations), to
deflect discontent away from those responsible for the human rights malpractice.
For example, discontent is often deflected towards the Corporations to hide the
activities of those bureaucrats, domestic and international, who determine ‘the rules of
73
the game’ (see chapter on New Zealand).
I consider the Corporations are willing targets of discontent because the ‘rules of the
game’ as determined by the liberal collectivists, domestically and globally, permit the
Corporations to gain considerable dominance because of economic globalization.
IMF globalization has the support of virtually all States so decisions of the IMF, which
is ‘governed by and accountable to’ its membership may just as well be attributed to
the UN General Assembly.
In its Fact sheet the IMF states it is ‘governed by and accountable to the 188 countries
that make up its near-global membership’ (IMF. (2014)).
In the year 2000 the Millennium Declaration was signed by 189 world leaders whose
States virtually comprise the membership of the IMF and all seem to believe in the
IMF’s globalization policies which is evidenced in the Millennium Declaration which
states in its “Values and Principles”:

  1. “We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization
    becomes a positive force for all the world’s people” (‘Values and Principles’. (2000)).
    The human rights omissions which form part of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda,
    which are reflected in numerous constitutions, permitted States to implement IMF
    globalization policies at the domestic level.
    Article 1 of the Purposes in the IMF’s Articles of Agreement makes no mention of the
    domestic free market only the global free market – its purpose being ‘to promote
    international monetary cooperation…’ and ‘to facilitate the expansion and balanced
    growth of international trade…’ (IMF. (1945)).
    This enabled development rather being based on individual self-determination, as
    exists in the Universal Declaration, to be based on middleclass professional collective
    or elite interests, including the Corporations, which is not in the Universal Declaration.
    The covenants by excluding individual self-determination means collective
    self-determination is not required to reflect the interests of individuals.
    That development should be based on the individual rather than elites also seems
    74
    reflected in Article 2(1) of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development which
    seems to regard the human person as the ‘central subject of development’. It states:
    “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active
    participant and beneficiary of the right to development” (UN Declaration.(1986)).
    Consequently, IMF globalization policies helped fulfil the cultural cleansing of
    individual self-determination which increased as IMF membership increased,
    extending the domain of globalization.
    IMF membership increased from about 31 States in 1945 to the present 188 States
    (IMF members. (2012)).
    Prior to globalization, about the same time of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, was a
    time the liberal individualists were the dominant elite in States which had greater
    sovereignty.
    International trade during this period has been described as ‘embedded liberalism’
    which while encouraging a global free market also involved protection of the domestic
    market. Consequently, in my experience, there seemed to be much entrepreneurial
    activity.
    Embedded liberalism is a term credited to John Ruggie who defines it as involving – ‘A
    compromise, characterized by multilateralism, predicated on domestic interventionism’
    (Ruggie J. (1982)).
    Put more simply embedded liberalism is described as having ‘signified a compromise
    between excessive free markets and excessive protectionism’. Or while States pursued
    economic globalization ‘governments also sought to maintain autonomy to pursue
    production strategies, employment policies and social welfare protection. (Coelho D.
    (2012)).
    However, with the onset of political globalization and the liberal collectivists becoming
    the dominant elite I consider the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination
    which began under neoliberalism is to be completed under neoliberal absolutism.
    The IMF can act contrary to the Universal Declaration because the IMF is a ‘human
    75
    rights free zone’ as indicated by Kris Kirby who, citing a number of authorities, states
    that the Articles of Agreement of the IMF ‘contains no explicit mention of human
    rights’ and that ‘the institution itself most often claims that human rights concerns are
    outside its scope’ (Kirby K. (2006)).
    Consequently, unlike the UN General Assembly the IMF is not accountable in terms of
    human rights. Consequently, global discontent can be directed at the IMF and
    America’s veto power with little practical effect.
    The existence of the IMF, which is regarded as a UN specialized agency, is sanctioned
    by the General Assembly which also ensured that human rights did not impair the IMF
    constitution which enabled the IMF to be a ‘human rights free zone’.
    The UN Economic and Social Council deals with the relationship between specialized
    agencies, such as the IMF, and the UN system. Article 51 (1) of the UN Charter states:
    ‘The various specialized agencies…shall be brought into relationship with the United
    Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63’ and subsection (1) of the latter
    article allowed the Economic and Social Council to enter into agreements with the
    specialized agencies’.
    Also, the UN covenants, which help make up international human rights law, make
    provisions for the specialized agencies and make sure human rights do not affect the
    constitutions of specialized agencies. Articles 24 and Article 46 respectively of the
    covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights state:
    “Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of
    the Charter of the United Nations and of the constitutions of the specialized agencies
    which define the respective responsibilities of the various organs of the United Nations
    and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present
    Covenant”.
    America’s veto power in the IMF may well be preferred by its membership because
    they also wish America, a major enemy of totalitarianism, to be considered culpable.
    America has 16.75 per cent voting power greater than the requirement for major
    institutional change of 85 per cent of all quotas (American quota. (2014)).
    76
    However, it seems that America’s veto power could be removed if it was the will of the
    IMF membership. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 14 April 2014 shortly
    after the US Congress failed to ratify IMF reforms which would give more power to
    emerging economies that the latter had a plan to remove US veto power.
    The WSJ stated: “The U.S. would lose its veto power on the International Monetary
    Fund’s executive board under a plan being considered by some emerging economies.
    The countries are fed up with the United States’ failure to ratify a four-year-old deal to
    restructure the emergency lender (WSJ. (2014)).
    Also, regarding the failure of America to ratify IMF reforms C. Fred Bergsten and
    Edwin Truman, who served under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, wrote that ‘the Fund
    could increase total country quota subscriptions that would remove Washington’s veto
    power over institutional changes’ (Lobe, 12 April 2014).
    Global Crime Against Humanity
    In conclusion, I consider the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda constitutes a global
    crime against humanity (Ravlich, 14 Jan 2015).
    The leadership of the considerable majority of States represented in the UN General
    Assembly certainly appear to be using the United Nations as a way of protecting their
    interests, consolidating and expanding their power, out of the sight of the populations
    and voters within their countries.
    With respect to the UN’s ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ Article 30 of the Universal
    Declaration prohibits any interpretation of the declaration which seeks to destroy
    human rights. Article 30 states:
    “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or
    person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
    of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”
    In addition, article 29(3) states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be
    exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.
    77
    The purposes and principles are in the UN Charter which requires that the UN
    ‘promote’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 1(3), Art 55 (3) of the UN
    Charter) and assist ‘in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for
    all…’. (Ch IV, Art 13(1), UN Charter).
    Sir Geoffrey Palmer in an address to the International Law Association at Auckland
    University on 30 April 1998 stated: “Although not often acknowledged, members of
    the United Nations are under a legal obligation to act in accordance with the purposes
    and principles of the Charter. Under the Charter they have a legal duty to promote and
    encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Ravlich, 13 Oct
    2004).
    Perversely, in my view, the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda seeks to destroy the
    universal human rights truth, thereby initiating a global war on truth, upon which the
    UDHR is based.
    And I very much doubt given the ‘near absolute’ control of neoliberal absolutism that
    individuals would even be able to have a conscience of their own. Such totalitarianism
    seems to be based on a negative view of human nature – rather than being good it is
    regarded as evil and in need of almost total control.
    I consider the virtual exclusion of universal truth in public policy leaves very largely
    only political truths which means society descends into a power game between
    collectives and the independent people which helps explain the gap that appears to
    exist between the establishment and the rest.
    It is also of profound concern because, in my personal view, neoliberal absolutism
    seeks to eliminate God’s Universal Truth and spirituality which I regard as also a
    creative force. Personally, I regard neoliberal absolutism as ‘evil’ (also see the
    discussion on religious political parties at the end of the chapter on Bangladesh).
    In my view, the leadership of the UN bureaucracy should be held to account for failing
    to ensure States fulfilled their duty under the UN Charter to uphold the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights.
    The UN High Commissioner and Under-Secretary General, according to the General
    78
    Assembly resolution, A/RES/48/141, is ‘under the direction and authority of the
    Secretary-General’ but is required to ‘Function within the framework of the Charter of
    the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…’ (General Assembly
    resolution, 20 Dec 1993).
    Also, to my knowledge, the UN General Assembly has not been informed of the ethical
    approach and there would seem no reason why it could not be brought to the attention
    of the UN General Assembly. Article 14, Chapter IV, General Assembly, of the UN
    Charter states:
    “……the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of
    any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare
    or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of
    the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the
    United Nations”.
    Despite my attempts to inform the UN of what I see as a global crime against humanity
    I have had no response.
    However, it seems very likely that the Office of the High Commission for Human
    Rights as well as the UN General Assembly are captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’
    collectivist agenda however if I could inform people of the ethical approach to human
    rights in the public notices of the mainstream media (see chapter on New Zealand)
    there would seem no reason why the UN could not also inform people in this way.
    I consider that by hiding so very many extremely important human rights truths the UN
    is treating humanity and the Universal Declaration with contempt.
    As is standing in the path of human rights development which the ethical approach
    represents – people should have a choice.
    While, it also, in my view, makes any of their claims to believe in democracy
    disingenuous as voters need to be informed of important human rights truths. It’s
    certainly as if, given the above human rights omissions, that they regard human rights
    as their intellectual property and they have no duty to inform people.
    But, in my view, the UN was profoundly arrogant in regarding human rights universal
    79
    truth as being virtually completely irrelevant while seeking to create a world in their
    own collectivist image.
    I consider individuals, organizations and States need to be Human Rights Transparent
    e.g. whether they promote human rights as interpreted by the Universal Declaration,
    the US Constitution or the considerable consensus of the States in the UN General
    Assembly which, in my view, really reflects the interests of those governments wishing
    to consolidate and expand their power.
    Human Rights Transparency will expose those who are promoting the UN’s ‘hidden’
    collectivist agenda and consequently promoting totalitarianism the prevention of which
    was a major reason the Universal Declaration was created post second-world war.
    Given the above global crime against humanity I consider Western States would be
    justified in boycotting the UN until the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is removed.
    As described above taking a similar view UN Watch when testifying before the US
    Congress on 17 May 2016 questioned whether the UN Human Rights Council has
    turned into Frankenstein’s monster and the Head of UN Watch, Hillel Neurer, stated: “I
    believe the U.S. and fellow democracies can and must fight back” (Neurer, May 2016).
    The ethical human rights approach if adopted and reflected in domestic and
    international law would eliminate the UN’s collectivist agenda and the dominance of
    the liberal collectivists as well as repressive States at the UN.
    While the UN (and regional bodies such as the EU) could still play a valuable but more
    limited role in human rights holding countries to account for failing to ensure core
    minimum human rights i.e. only being concerned with the most serious human rights
    violations.
    The latter would give States much greater sovereignty to decide higher levels of human
    rights which in democratic countries would reflect the policies of political parties.
    Under ethical human rights a State can retain its sovereignty whereas under a one
    world government States are likely to have to forgo much, perhaps almost all,
    sovereignty to the United Nations, the European Union, or the emerging East Asia
    Community, which includes New Zealand and Australia.
    80
    History seems to favor sovereignty and regaining national sovereignty was a major
    reason given for Britain’s exit from the European Union (Foster, 8 June 2016).

Section Five Chapter One – the UN’s hidden collectivist agenda.

Rule of Law
Another area where the cultural cleansing of self-determination certainly appears to be
taking place is the United Nations Development Program’s involvement in nearly half
the countries of the world, so far, promoting the rule of law, police, security, and
criminal justice systems and certainly appearing to be preparing for a future one world
government (also see my article for further background, (Ravlich A. (2014)).
However, I consider the ‘rule of law’ is based on international human rights law which
64
allows the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda to culturally cleanse society of individual
self-determination (also see chapter on Bangladesh where the UNDP’s promotion of
the rule of law etc. appears to have been trialled).
The UNDP’s promotion of the rule of law, police etc. is, in my view, really intended,
rather than address impunity, justice for the poor and equal rights for men and women
as is often claimed by the UNDP, to criminalize and/or label as mentally ill many
economic and social entrepreneurs and self-determining individuals who are not
compliant with the rule of law.
The latter, in my view, is to further the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination. Compliance is the new term that seems to be rapidly gaining
traction in New Zealand and most likely elsewhere.
Helen Clark, Head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and ranked
third at the UN, in her opening speech to the UN on 26 September 2013 described the
Global Focal Point for Police, Justice and Corrections from the UN Secretary-General
which involves the ‘strengthening of the Rule of Law, State police and security forces’.
Helen Clark states that the Rule of Law within the State is based on international
human rights law: “Judicial independence is an indispensable part of the right to due
process, the rule of law, and democracy. The concept of the rule of law is embedded in
the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Support for the rule of law is a core pillar of UNDP’s work. We have programs in this
area in more than ninety countries and have developed global expertise on it” (Clark H.
(2014)).
But rather than being a detached bureaucrat Helen Clark certainly appears to have far
exceeded her mandate by 60 countries seemingly seizing the opportunity to further the
UN’s collectivist agenda and the interests of her class i.e. the liberal collectivists.
Helen Clark stated about ten months after UN Secretary-General’s announcement in
September 2012 which limits such support to ‘crisis and post-conflict countries’
described as involving ‘forty or so countries’: “We are active in more than 100
countries to help strengthen justice and security systems and establish the rule of law,
including in almost all the forty or so countries which are seen as crisis-affected or
65
fragile.” (Clark H. (2013)).
The United Nations Development Program’s Fact Sheet described the UN
Secretary-General’s announcement. It states:
“In September 2012, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed
the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) as the Global Focal Point for the Police, Justice and
Corrections Areas in the Rule of Law in Post-conflict and other Crisis Situations. The
Secretary-General has prioritized “delivery as one” by the United Nations in crisis and
conflict settings. The Global Focal Point arrangement will strengthen the United
Nations ability to fill critical civilian capacity gaps in the aftermath of conflict. To
facilitate the provision of joint support, both organizations have agreed to co-locate a
portion of their respective rule of law teams from early 2013 in a single location at
United Nations Headquarters”
Helen Clark gained the backing of a ‘High Level Panel’ on Post-2015 to extend her
mandate from crisis and post-conflict situations to include people’s ‘well-being’ in
general. She states:
“Demand for this kind of support is increasing. Countries are requesting our support
to confront vulnerabilities stemming from climate change, the fallout from economic
and financial crisis, organized crime, governance failures, and recovery from conflict
and disaster. We aim to help countries to strengthen their resilience and address
underlying challenges. Our integrated support aims to improve governance, strengthen
security and justice systems, confront discrimination and inequity, and reduce poverty”
(Clark H. (2013)).
Also, she indicates an intention to even further extend her mandate to possibly 194
countries based on UN-facilitated consultations.
“This view is reinforced by what we have been hearing in the UN-facilitated
consultations. Hundreds of thousands of people from across 194 countries, have voted
on their priorities for the future in the global My World survey. Support for “honest and
responsive government” has ranked very high. That can only be achieved where the
just rule of law prevails” (Clark H. (2013)).
66
In my view, given the existence of the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda a country
would be justified in ignoring international law until the collectivist agenda is removed.
State Constitutions
The following shows how the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda is reflected in State
Constitutions. It is more of a technical nature and the reader may prefer to skip this
section and refer to it later if necessary.
From my experience, often the existence of major social problems can be seen to be
permitted by human rights omissions in human rights law (see chapter on New
Zealand).
As stated above the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda can be seen by the human rights
in the Universal Declaration but omitted from international law. The omitted rights
written in full are as follows:
Article 17(1), ‘Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association
with others’;
Article 29 (1), ‘Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full
development of his personality is possible’;
Included in Article 22, ‘Everyone as a member of society ……… is entitled to
realization… of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity
and the free development of his personality’ (The latter is also called individual
self-determination);
The State’s core minimums obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural
rights i.e. Art 23 to 27, 29 UDHR (consequently economic, social and cultural rights do
not have a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ which permits exploitation and the creation of
under classes).
Individual Self-determination:
The omission of individual self-determination from State Constitutions has already
67
been discussed above.
The following describe the other omissions from State Constitutions required to
implement the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
Property Rights (including intellectual property) and duties to the community:
The right to property includes intellectual property. General Comment No.20 states:
“Property status, as a prohibited ground of discrimination, is a broad concept and
includes real property (e.g. land ownership or tenure) and personal property (e.g.
intellectual property, goods and chattels, and income), or the lack of it (General
Comment No. 20. (2009)).
In my view, the omission of the right to property in the UN covenants permits those
implementing the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda i.e. the leaderships in the
establishment, to virtually regard human rights as their intellectual property.
While the omission of ‘duties to the community’ permits no duty to inform people of
important human rights truths if they choose not to, even in a democracy.
They can also choose who to share their intellectual property with while often
expressing the need for confidentiality. And I consider this enabled the purging of the
‘best and brightest’ seen as ‘unsafe’ and thereby helping to fulfil the cultural cleansing
of individual self-determination. What many employers in the establishment seek, in
my view, is compliance not success.
It is well-known that many were excluded from employment for being overqualified
even though there were sparse, if any, opportunities for them elsewhere.
Both the Universal Declaration and the UN covenants do include non-discrimination
on the grounds of property (Part II, Art 2(2) in the covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights; Part II, Art 2(1) in the covenant on civil and political rights).
However, the covenants unlike the Universal Declaration do not include the right to
property.
Because States follow international law as in the covenants the latter’s exclusion of the
right to property enables States to exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of
68
intellectual property.
States can include property rights if they wish (the Constitute Project describes 166
States as including the right to property) but can define it only in economic terms so
they are able to exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property.
While the Constitute Project describes 80 constitutions which provide for the right to
intellectual property none could be found which include non-discrimination with
respect to intellectual property.
And, the 16 grounds of non-discrimination listed in the Constitute Project do not
include non-discrimination with respect to property or intellectual property.
However, the grounds of non-discrimination do include non-discrimination on the
grounds of financial status with 42 constitutions including the latter (The Constitute
Project. (2013)).
Gillian MacNaughton, citing various authorities, states that in practice
non-discrimination with respect to property only refers to economic status not
intellectual property. She states: “That “property” in the non-discrimination provision
refers to economic status — in other words, wealth or poverty status — is well
recognized by commentators” (MacNaughton G. (2009)).
I consider virtually all States exclude non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual
property to favor collective interests, including the Corporation’s intellectual property.
Under ethical human rights the gifted and deserving must succeed or, at least, be seen
to be the case by ensuring all the grounds of non-discrimination are included in human
rights law. This would also include non-discrimination on the grounds of intellectual
property.
Other forms of discrimination which are also used to suppress human potential seem in
much need of attention. For example, social class and socio-economic (wealth)
discrimination, caste discrimination, and discrimination with respect to birth which
also includes descent i.e. family lineage (the latter are discussed further in the sections
on New Zealand and Bangladesh).
69
Property rights
Others also see detrimental consequences for individual self-determination because of
the exclusion of the right to property:
Francois Gianviti, former General Counsel of the IMF (1986 to 2004), describes how
the omission of certain rights in the UN covenants means those rights would fall
‘outside the scope of the human rights monitoring system’ e.g. the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights hold States to account for economic, social and
cultural rights while the Human Rights Committee holds states to account for civil and
political rights.
The omissions he describes very largely reflect some of the omissions in the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.
Gianviti states that ‘there exists a wider set of economic rights than those contained in
the Covenant, and it involves economic considerations as well as legal ones’.
He states: “It may be noted first that the Covenant does not contain all the important
rights that need to be exercised in order for individuals to enjoy the social progress that
is the objective of the Covenant”.
He describes the omission of property rights: “There are a number of rights that are
essential for the achievement of the social rights set out in the Covenant but are not
stated in the Covenant. For example, the right to property is stated in the Universal
Declaration but it is not included in any of the two covenants’, and thus has remained
outside the scope of the human rights monitoring system”.
He then also seems to be describing the omission of individual self-determination i.e.
whereby the individual is entitled to realize his/her economic, social and cultural rights
rather than, for example, just being given welfare. Gianviti describing the importance
of property rights states: “Other rights, such as the rights to engage in economic
activity and to trade are as important to the realization of the rights specified in the
Covenant. These rights provide the very basic tools that all people, including the poor,
can use to engage in economic activity and to improve their economic condition’
(Gianviti F. (2002)).
70
Bernard Robertson, in his study for the New Zealand Business Round Table also
describes the detrimental effects of the omission of the right to property.
Robertson describes some economic and social rights ‘which do not appear in the
ICESCR’. These include the right to property ‘which would include not to have one’s
savings eroded by inflation, freedom of contract including the freedom to agree to the
form of contract which best suits the mutual purposes of the parties making it, the right
to obtain the best goods and services regardless of the country of origin’.
He adds that these rights can be protected in the same way as classical civil and
political rights, by rules which instruct the government to abstain from such activities
as interfering in contracts, in inflationary spending, imposing tariffs and quotas,
according privileges to particular groups and deficit budgeting’ (Robertson B. (1997)).
Duties to the community
Under the Universal Declaration (Article 29(1)) all have duties to the community i.e.
not just the Corporations, but while in the preambles of the covenants they are not
included under international law for inclusion in domestic law.
According the Constitute Project no State constitutions include the general ‘duties to
the community’ although specific duties are included by some States e.g. duty to work,
duty to pay taxes, to serve in the military, to obey the constitution, to join a political
party.
Core minimum obligations:
While the UDHR makes no distinction between civil and political rights and economic,
social and cultural rights the wording of the covenants are different with respect to their
implementation:
Article 2(1) of the covenant on civil and political rights requires that the State
‘undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals…the rights recognized in the
present Covenant’ however the parallel article in the covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights requires States to take steps “with a view to achieve progressively the
full realization of the rights”.
71
While civil and political rights are ensured e.g. implemented within an immediate
time-frame, only the progressive achievement of economic, social and cultural rights
are required i.e. the State need only take steps towards the realization of the rights.
Claire-Michelle Smyth considers this explains why economic, social and cultural rights
have in the past been considered as lesser rights and unenforceable because they leave
States with a ‘wide margin of appreciation’ on how to implement the rights.
She states: “Part of the reason for social and economic rights being classed as lesser
rights is wording and non-enforceability of the Covenant. The only obligation placed
on States is that they take steps “with a view to achieve progressively the full
realization of the rights” and thus leaves State with a wide margin of appreciation on
how to implement the rights” (Smyth C. (2012)).
Chapter 5 of my previous book describes how States were afforded a ‘broad margin of
appreciation’ permitting the focus of economic, social and cultural rights on elites
rather than the most disadvantaged while also failing to protect against exploitation
(which economic, social and cultural rights are meant to do) by not ensuring a
socio-economic ‘bottom-line’.
In failing to include the core minimum obligations the OP ignored the UN Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which stated:
”On the basis of the extensive experience gained by the Committee, as well as by the
body that preceded it, over a period of more than a decade of examining States parties’
reports the Committee is of the view that a minimum core obligation to ensure the
satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is
incumbent upon every State party” (General Comment No. 3. (1990)).
The Committee then described in practical terms the ‘bottom-line’ that is required:
“Thus, for example, a State party in which any significant number of individuals is
deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and
housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its
obligations under the Covenant” (General Comment No. 3. (1990)).
The Committee also added that without such a bottom-line the Covenant would lose
72
any purpose. The Committee states: “If the Covenant were to be read in such a way as
not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it would be largely deprived of its
raison d’etre” (General Comment No. 3. (1990)).
Also, without the inclusion of core minimum human rights as grounds for complaint
most likely meant there could be no challenge in court to the growing gap between rich
and poor and the failure of ‘trickle down’.