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
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.
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
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
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
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
In such a very politicized society reflecting collective self-interest there is very largely
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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
shutting down’ the more independent, higher functioning individual often the ‘best and
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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”
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.