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)).

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.

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.

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.

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”:

5. “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).

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’.

The Cultural Cleansing of Individual
Self-determination
Under neoliberalism, while neoliberal absolutism is likely to be far worse, bottom-up
development seems to have also been severely suppressed fulfilling the UN’s hidden’
collectivist agenda to culturally cleanse the world of individual self-determination.
Because, it seems, of the lack of new ideas the West is experiencing low growth.
In an article in Forbes, ‘Why U.S. Entrepreneurship is Dying’, Steve Denning states:
“American entrepreneurship, the social force that made this country the envy of the
world, is dying. Many different studies, using different ways to measure the growth and
success of start-ups, all point to the same conclusion. The decline in U.S.
entrepreneurship has been going on for decades” (Denning S. (2016)).
While an article in the Washington Post states: “New research shows that the country’s
rate of new business creation, which peaked about decade ago, plunged more than 30
percent during the economic collapse and has been slow to bounce back following the
recession” (Harrison J. (2015)).
And Leigh Buchanan of Inc. Magazine described start up decline: “According to
Census Bureau data reported by the Kauffman Foundations and Brookings Institution,
the number of new companies as a share of all U.S. businesses has dropped 44 per cent
since 1978” (Buchanan L. (2015)).
A study “2002 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor” (GEM) conducted by Babson
College and the London Business School showed a 25 per cent decline in global
entrepreneurial activity, reflecting a universal decline in national economic growth.
Some of the other findings of the study were not very encouraging for the EU with big
declines recorded for France (-57 per cent), Germany (-35 per cent), Italy (- 42 per cent)
and the UK (-31 per cent) (EurActiv. (2010)).
It appears that growth has been in decline since the onset of neoliberalism and showed
58
a very serious decline with the onset of neoliberal absolutism.
Looking at the American economy in 10-year increments starting from 1948 (when
declines from wartime spending had ended) J.T. Young gives the following comparison
of average GDP growth which shows a major decline after the global financial crisis i.e.
the creation of neoliberal absolutism, in 2008-2013:
1948-57: 3.80%; 1958-67: 4.28%; 1968-77: 3.18%; 1978-87: 3.15%; 1988-97: 3.05%;
1998-2007: 2.99%; 2008-2013: 0.73%
Young adds that prior to the global financial crisis GDP was in decline. He states:
“Even if 2008 (-0.3%) and 2009’s (-3.1%) negative annual GDP percentages are
dropped (something undone for the other periods) and only the 2010-13 period is
averaged, the result is just 1.95% – still over a full percentage point below the previous
decade’s” (Young J. (2013)).
And the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis provides a graph which shows a sharp
decline in Gross Domestic Product in 2009 coinciding with the global financial crisis.
Describing the graph Rob Urie states that ‘inflation-adjusted GDP has been declining
steadily since the neoliberal resurgence began in the 1970s’ (Urie B. (2015)).
By contrast the Asian economies, seemingly because able to exploit vast workforces,
are expected to account for most of global growth. The IMF states in its Reginal
Economic Outlook: “The Asia Pacific region is expected to grow at a strong 5.3
percent this year, accounting for nearly two-thirds of global growth…” (Shaffer l.
(2016)).
The following are some examples of the domestic suppression of bottom-up
development which I consider is part of the cultural cleansing of individual
self-determination:
The section on New Zealand shows how bureaucracy suppresses small business using
red tape which was exposed following the first Christchurch earthquake in September
2010 which required the government to assume greater executive power, using ‘orders
in council’, to cut though the red tape, involving 22 statutes, to assist small business
(see the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010, Section 6, 14
59
September 2010).
In addition, while having the opportunity the Key government failed to extend the
assistance to small business nation-wide after the first Christchurch earthquake. 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.
Another example of how small business is being suppressed in the age of globalization
is given by the America Small Business League (ASBL) which states in the year to
August 2014 that small business has lost approximately $63 billion in federal small
business contracts to big business.
The ASBL states: “We estimate that the federal government diverts more than $100
billion a year in federal small business contracts to large and international corporations
and then counts those contract awards to large businesses in annual federal small
business procurement reports”.
The ASBL explains that to ensure economic justice and to create new jobs, Congress
enacted the Small Business Act in 1953, which requires that 23 percent of all federal
contracts are awarded to small businesses annually. This is a landmark piece of
economic legislation for the U.S., because small businesses create 90 percent of net
new jobs, in the view of the U.S. Census Bureau (American Small Business League.
(2014).
Also, the section on Bangladesh shows that its famed microloan scheme is now under
serious threat. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus was the founder of the Grameen Bank
which helped large numbers, mainly women, with small credit offered by the bank.
In November 2013 Bangladesh introduced a new law which Yunus considered would
pave the way for the ‘ultimate destruction’ of the Grameen Bank. The government had
increased its stake in the bank to 25% from around 3% and Yunus considered the new
law “created the opportunity for the government to take 100 percent control of the
bank” (Hindustantimes. (2013).
60
Ratification
While the liberal collectivists, often consisting of academics and bureaucrats, are
usually in the background and perceived as relatively benign and detached, in my view,
they seize their opportunity to further their class interests and the UN’s ‘hidden’
collectivist agenda when the occasion arises.
The first major occasion was the onset of neoliberalism when they replaced the former
dominant elite, ‘secular, liberal individualists’ which took place in 1984 in New
Zealand and during that time when working for the Justice Department I witnessed
what I believe to be the creation of an ‘old boys and girls network’ in the bureaucracy
which reflected the culture of the liberal collectivists with affirmative action resulting
in increasing numbers of women and Maori.
The liberal collectivists again seized their opportunity to advance their class interests
with the creation of neoliberal absolutism on 10 December 2008 with, in my view, the
liberal collectivists playing a major role in promoting the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural Rights.
At present, the race now seems to be on to have the OP ratified by as many States as
possible which would further marginalize America and any likely Western support.
The OP came under international human rights law on 5 May 2013 after receiving the
required ten ratifications. As of the 7 June 2015 the OP has 45 signatures with 20 State
ratifications since it was open for signature on 24 September 2009 (UN Treaties.
(2015)).
In my view, it was the secular, liberal collectivists in control of major human rights
organizations who were the major drivers of the OP which eventually led to the rise of
repressive States to determine the human rights agenda.
Given that human rights organizations were promoting an OP which would eventually
see the ‘permanent’ decline of the West, the global decline of individual freedoms as
well as the rise of repressive States at the UN it may not be surprising that America’s
National Security Agency (NSA), in the view of Edward Snowden, was involved in
61
spying on human rights organizations.
An article, ‘Edward Snowden: US government spied on human rights workers’, by the
Guardian on 8 April 2014 states: “Whistle blower tells Council of Europe NSA
deliberately snooped on groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International’ (Harding l. (2014)).
Without wishing to justify the NSA’s invasion of privacy individuals such as myself
who would offer an alternative view are excluded from the global mainstream media.
The major promoter of the OP, including at the United Nations, has been the
International NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Coalition) which describes itself as having
‘led NGO efforts towards the drafting and subsequent adoption of the Optional
Protocol and now focuses on the ratification and implementation process of this treaty’.
The Coalition states that its work is coordinated by the International Network for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and led by an international Steering
Committee formed by: Amnesty International, Community Law Centre, University of
the Western Cape, Fédération internationale des droits de L’Homme (FIDH), Food First
Information and Action Network (FIAN), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ),
International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net),
International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Plataforma Interamericana de
Derechos Humanos, Democracia Desarrollo (PIDHDD), and Social Rights Advocacy
Centre (SRAC) (NGO Coalition. (2015)).
While ESCR-Net, which coordinates the work of the Coalition, states that 222
organizations and 48 individuals from 70 different countries form the General
Assembly of ESCR-Net (ESCR-Net. (2015)).
In my view, there is an urgent need for Human Rights Transparency by human rights
organizations and individuals promoting human rights particularly now that repressive
States appear to be in control of the human rights agenda at the UN.
There is a huge difference between liberal collectivism and liberal individualism but
they both come under the human rights banner with almost all people not realizing
62
there is any difference.
Also, in the Cold War the major ideological battle at the UN was between America
supporting civil and political rights and the communists of Eastern Europe promoting
economic, social and cultural rights while today America focuses on civil and political
rights as in the US Constitution while China prioritizes economic, social and cultural
rights. While all the latter come under the human rights banner they are all very
different. Different human rights omissions often subject different sections of the
population to gross neglect.
For instance, do the above human rights organizations promote the universal
declaration of human rights, human rights as defined by America or do they include the
UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda? In my view, it is the latter.
Also, given that some of these human rights organizations seek donations from the
public Human Rights Transparency should be required.
The OP has already been ratified by some States considered Western – Belgium, 20
May 2014, Finland, 31 Jan 2014, France, 18 March 2015, Italy, 20 Feb 2015 and
Portugal, 28 Jan 2013.
However, it would seem unlikely that those countries in the America camp at the UN
would ratify the OP. While my previous book describes New Zealand as often seeming
to ‘sit on the fence’ between the American camp and the rest at the UN it seems
unlikely that New Zealand will ratify the OP in the immediate future.
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission states: “The Optional Protocol to
ICESCR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2008. While New Zealand
engaged constructively in the negotiation of the optional protocol, it has not agreed to
ratification, although it has indicated it may consider reviewing this position in due
course” (Human Rights in NZ. (2010)).
Furthermore, an email to me from the then New Zealand Human Rights Commissioner,
Rosslyn Noonan, stated: ‘It is highly unlikely that the current government (or even the
previous one) would ratify it’ (personal email, 12 April, 2009).
While, in my view, America is losing the ideological battle in New Zealand because of
63
the strength of the liberal collectivists who, from my experience, are virulently
anti-America and anti-Israel but New Zealand’s cultural links especially to Britain and
Australia, both members of the American camp, would seem much too strong for New
Zealand to side with repressive States in the immediate future, at least.
However, in my opinion, out of the Anglo countries, New Zealand could most easily
slip into the totalitarian camp.
I regard the liberal collectivists as ‘the major enemy of human rights’ together with the
considerable majority of States in the UN General Assembly which permitted the UN’s
‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which led to rise to the global dominance of the liberal
collectivists.
Although, those liberal collectivists associated with the American camp at the UN
seemed to avoid any full endorsement for neoliberal absolutism.
In my view, the liberal collectivists need to be exposed and, I consider, one way of
doing this is to require human rights activists and organizations to be Human Rights
Transparent so they will expose themselves.
The inclusion of non-discrimination with respect to social origin in human rights law
would also prohibit social class discrimination which favors the liberal collectivists
(see the New Zealand chapter).
In addition, ethical human rights reflected in domestic and international law would
remove what I consider is their major support – the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda.

Turn-Around
Given America’s dissent at the UN it was perhaps not surprising that on 4 November
2014 when the Republicans won a majority in the US Senate Mitch McConnell, the
then presumptive Senate Majority Leader (now the leader) said that America needed to
be ‘turned-around’.
The latter certainly seems to have been a response to the creation of neoliberal
absolutism.
A ‘turn-around’ would likely mean an emphasis on the small entrepreneur rather than
big business.
McConnell said that lawmakers in Washington have “forgotten that their job is to
serve.” He added: “So tomorrow, the papers will say that I won this race. But the truth
is, tonight we begin another one, one that’s far more important than mine,” McConnell
said, “and that’s the race to turn this country around, to restore hope and confidence and
optimism across this Commonwealth and nation of ours.” (McConnell M. (2014)).
Given the West’s marginalization at the UN and the threat totalitarianism poses to
Western culture it would seem there is little choice but for America to turn itself around
i.e. replacing collective self-determination with individual self-determination, which is
likely to mean an emphasis on the small entrepreneur rather than big business.
46
Such a ‘turn- around’ could unleash much suppressed potential and take the country
forward and would also very likely give many of the young a future. For example, an
article by the Rockefeller Foundation states: “With more than 23 million small
businesses nationwide, this community provides upwards of 55 percent of all jobs and
contributes significantly to new job creation in the U.S. These factors put small
businesses in a unique position to create, test, and adapt strategies that reduce the
unemployment hardships faced by our nation’s youth” (Rockefeller foundation.
(2015)).
For youth and the discontented whereas in a former era the fight was individual
freedoms versus the State under political globalization it is taken to almost a whole
new level which could be described as individual rights versus the world.
The latter, in my view, was just too overwhelming for many of the young and
discontented, often bereft of both survival and/or self-help rights, leaving them for a
very long time, from my observation, in a state of limbo, unsure what to do.
I see ‘global ethical human rights’ as a plan that could be adopted by the discontented,
particularly youth, as close to half the world’s States have youth unemployment rates of
20% or far more indicating global mass discrimination.
Youth, ages 15 to 24: Out of 129 countries 103 countries have youth unemployment
rates of 10% or more, 58 countries 20% or over, 15 countries over 30%, 8 countries
over 40%, and 2 countries over 50% (World Factbook. (2012)).
The International Labour Organization in its ‘World Employment and Social Outlook –
Trends 2015’ describe the effects of the global financial crisis as particularly impacting
on youth stating: “Young workers aged 15-24 are particularly hit by the crisis, with a
global youth unemployment rate of almost 13 per cent in 2014 and a further increase
expected in coming years” (UN News Centre. (2015)).
Although the figure of 13 per cent could be far higher. William Reese, CEO of the
International Youth Foundation, thinks 13 per cent is ‘significantly underestimated’. He
states: “I’m not surprised by that number, because it is probably much higher than they
state. We’ve seen reports of over 70 million young people unemployed, but the real
number is probably six or seven times that,”.
47
He said a flawed system of assessing unemployment led to employment figures far
below the reality.
“Those statistics are typically assessing people who are looking for jobs, so if you’re
not looking for work, you’re technically not unemployed. People in poor countries are
often underemployed or underpaid,” (Butler J. (2015)).
Youth rather than joining ISIS with its violent ideology could adopt ethical human
rights which promotes non-extreme violence and can be used as the ethical base of a
political or religious party, a peaceful jihad, within the democratic process (see at the
end of the chapter on Bangladesh).
Anti-establishment sentiment seems to be rising in the West. The high numbers voting
for anti-establishment candidates in the US Presidential elections, the Brexit vote in
Britain, which also seemed anti-establishment, as well as reports of rising right-wing
nationalism in the EU indicate increasing opposition to neoliberalism, although
ideology seems rarely discussed.
The seeming substantial difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton,
certainly in the view of their supporters, also seems to reflect the difference between
old left, the liberal individualists, and the new ‘so-called left’, liberal collectivists,
which, in my view, is a social class.
The Brexit vote certainly appeared to be anti-establishment and seemed to reflect a
serious class divide in Britain (Sykes E. (2016)).
Class seems entrenched in Britain and is sometimes openly discussed because, in my
view, there is probably little fear of major change in the immediate future. However,
class seems rarely talked about in other countries in the Anglo sphere such as New
Zealand, Australia, Canada and America (BBC. (2013)).
While the anti-establishment vote in America and Britain indicates a rejection of the
neoliberal establishment, as well as it seems globalization, before any turn around
occurs it seems there will be a need to replace the neoliberal ideology which the
establishment presently appears to be resisting despite the serious threat that neoliberal
absolutism and the rise of totalitarianism poses to Western culture.
48
In my view, adherence to neoliberalism also means the liberal collectivists continue to
be supported by and drive the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda which perpetuates the
prevailing status quo and the domination of collectives.
But America’s rejection of neoliberal absolutism at the UN indicates that it could
conceivably ignore the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda as well as neoliberalism and
economic globalization and execute a ‘turn-around’.
However, even if America does a ‘turn-around’, as planned by the Republicans, and is
joined by other Western cultures, it is very likely, in my view, to only provide a
temporary reprieve as neoliberal absolutism is supported by the considerable majority
of States which is likely to eventually prevail.
In my experience, ideology is virtually cemented and will simply ‘steam roll’ over
property and people, even at enormous cost, to achieve its objective.
As with communism in Eastern Europe it often takes a long time before being released
from its iron grip.
America may dominate militarily and economically and while very important it is of
transitory nature whereas ideology is more of a ‘permanent’ nature and, in my view,
neoliberal absolutism will eventually succeed in decimating Western culture and global
freedom unless it is replaced. Consequently, a ‘turn-around’ is, in my view, only likely
to slow America’s decline.
I consider that ethical human rights, development and globalization (see below) once it
gets into the mainstream media will eventually replace both neoliberalism and
neoliberal absolutism and would not only ‘turn society around’ but also ‘take it
forward’.
However, if such a ‘turn-around’ means replacing the liberal collectivist elite with a
liberal individualist elite this could see a return to the past when certain groups such as
women and racial groups suffered because of liberal individualism’s lack of
recognition of individual economic and social rights. A major criticism of liberal
individualism was that it was too individualistic i.e. lacking in social responsibility.
The latter, in my view, meant that often women and racial groups did not have
49
sufficient ‘survival rights’ to make use of their ‘self-help rights’ so they could achieve
their full potential.
The ethical approach would, as would liberal individualism, ‘turn countries around’ but
ethical human rights, which can be described as socially responsible individualism,
would also ‘take countries and the world forward’ because it also includes individual
economic and social rights as well as duties.
However, liberal individualists, although limited to civil and political rights, do
emphasize the individual as in the Universal Declaration so are more compatible with
the latter unlike the liberal collectivists who emphasize the collective e.g. the
establishment, which I consider is not compatible with the declaration.
Although, in the absence of socially responsible individualists in society, if liberal
individualists replace liberal collectivists the State could ensure that all have, at least,
all the core minimum human rights in the Universal Declaration sufficient to enable
individual self-determination and ensure opportunities for all.
And, those who wish to earn higher levels of human rights can do so.
Consequently, unlike liberal individualism ethical human rights cannot be accused of
being too individualistic.
Such a turn-around with an emphasis on bottom-up development may also help address
some of the world’s major problems often attributed to the Corporations such as
climate change, the decimation of the animal population as well as exploitation (see
below).
My hope is that America will revisit Franklin Roosevelt’s proposed second bill of
rights which contained economic, social and cultural rights and adopt the ethical
approach.
America did not adopt a second bill of rights however economic, social and cultural
rights were eventually included in the Universal Declaration.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who has gained much
popularity amongst the young, has been promoting ‘democratic socialism’, a political
50
revolution while giving greater recognition to economic, social and cultural rights.
Speaking at Georgetown University’s new Institute of Politics and Public Service at the
McCourt School of Public Policy he described what ‘democratic socialism’ means to
him by stating that ‘real freedom must include economic security’.
The newspaper report stated: “Sanders’ speech invoked Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
1944 State of the Union address, in which the president described “a second Bill of
Rights” to provide more economic security for the American people. Sanders quoted
Roosevelt (FDR), who said that “true individual freedom cannot exist without
economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men” and Sanders
noted that policies FDR advocated for, such as Social Security, a federal minimum
wage, the 40-hour workweek, the eradication of child labor, collective bargaining,
banking regulations and other measures, were derided as “socialist” at the time”
(Lachman S. (2015)).
David Fahrenthold in The Washington Post gives some of Sander’s biggest ideas
including some economic and social rights: (1) Government health insurance for all, (2)
Free tuition at public colleges, (3) Break up the biggest banks, (4) New taxes on the
rich and corporations, which pay for new jobs and new aid, (5) Guaranteed parental
leave, (6) A “path to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants, (7) A carbon tax to
fight climate change (Fahrenthold D. (2016)).
The greater recognition given to economic, social and cultural rights such as the right
to health and the right to education, which have been regarded as socialist, is likely to
confront the young with major challenges in their thinking which could well eventually
lead a number to adopt the ethical approach to human rights.
While the ethical approach, which includes both sets of rights, could prove acceptable
to some sections of both Democrats and Republicans a major concern may be that a
future US Government could succumb to accepting neoliberal absolutism if economic,
social and cultural rights are ratified by the US.
By just adhering to civil and political rights enabled America to rebel against neoliberal
absolutism, exhibiting American exceptionalism, but by adopting ethical human rights
it would not only rebel against neoliberal absolutism but provide an alternative to it.
51
The Republican candidate for President, Donald Trump, has expressed opposition to
American exceptionalism. David Corn states:
“In 2012, the Republican Party was so hot to hype its love of “American
exceptionalism” that it devoted one of the party platform’s seven sections to this notion.
In this document, the GOP proclaimed that it embraced “American
exceptionalism—the conviction that our country holds a unique place in human
history.” But with Donald Trump now the Republicans’ presumptive presidential
nominee, the party may have to delete this doctrine from the platform it will be
constructing at its upcoming convention in Cleveland, because Trump has explicitly
declared that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.
Corn added regarding American exceptionalism: “Trump didn’t hesitate to shoot down
the premise of the question, saying he didn’t “like the term.” He questioned whether the
United States was “more exceptional” and “more outstanding” than other nations. He
also said that those who refer to American exceptionalism were “insulting the world”
and offending people in other countries, such as Russia, China, Germany, and Japan. It
is “not a nice term,” he said, maintaining it was wrong to equate patriotism with a
belief in American exceptionalism. He derided politicians who use the phrase (Corn D.
(2016)).
Trump considers that globalization has taken many jobs from Americans. He states
there is a need to replace globalism with ‘Americanism’.
He explains that America has lost nearly one third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997
– even as the country has increased its population by 50 million.
He considers that ‘at the center of this catastrophe are two trade deals. First, the North
American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Second, China’s entry into the World
Trade Organization’.
He states that ‘NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history, and China’s entrance into
the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history’ (Trump D.
(2016)).
Despite Trump’s opposition to American exceptionalism ‘Ámericanism’ (or America
52
First) would also seem to represent American exceptionalism in an era where
globalization is promoted by virtually all States.
It is described in the section on the IMF (see below) that 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”:

5. “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))
   In my opinion, globalization as defined by the IMF and supported by nearly all States
   is fraudulent because it requires a State to have a greater duty to other States rather than
   its own i.e. at present people in the West, without being given a choice, are being
   deprived of their ethical human rights for the sake of globalization.
   It appears that globalization is being used by nearly all States as a way of redistributing
   wealth from the West to the Rest.
   A future Trump administration could conceivably adopt the ethical approach if his
   economic policies seeking to create enormous employment opportunities for
   Americans are successful and can ensure for all both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help
   rights’ sufficient to enable individual self-determination e.g. the seeking of truth, hopes
   and dreams.
   And it appears that his economic policies which indicate a turn-around from an
   emphasis on the global free market to the domestic free market may facilitate
   individual self-determination.
   While Trump’s Americanism could enable the primary duty of the State to ensure
   ethical human rights for its people it is unclear to what extent it may be isolationist as
   ethical human rights also requires ethical global duty to help other countries unable to
   ensure ethical human rights for their people – although the latter would be a duty of all
   States, not just America, and where it is within the capacity of the State to help.
   I consider any form of totalitarianism or repression is not compatible with the
   53
   Universal Declaration which aims to protect individual rights from such very extreme
   control.
   I think America, especially because it was the major opponent of neoliberal absolutism
   at the UN, would be the best country to adopt the ethical approach because you need a
   country that can stand virtually alone, and not capitulate, as America showed in the
   discussions on the OP.
   Another possibility is Germany, which given its historical experience of totalitarianism
   i.e. Nazism, could also prove to be a formidable opponent of the growth of
   totalitarianism and given its leadership role in the EU, especially following the exit of
   Britain, could also help ensure Western unity by helping to save the EU from further
   disintegration should more countries decide to follow Britain and hold referendums.
   In my opinion, if America, or any country, adopted the ethical approach it would take a
   world lead in human rights.
   Both neoliberalism and neoliberal absolutism, in my view, would have no answer to the
   moral force of the ethical approach which is firmly based on the Universal Declaration.
   I predict that if people are informed of the ethical approach in the mainstream media it
   will eventually see the collapse of neoliberal absolutism and the dominance of
   repressive States at the UN but I think it will happen far more quickly with America’s
   support (or Germany’s support).
   Because of America’s opposition to neoliberal absolutism it now certainly appears that
   there has been a return to a bi-polar world and America seems concerned to seek
   greater Western unity.
   For example, the American pivot into South Asia and the Australia US alliance may
   reflect this. It has seen ‘the emergence of Australia as a central part of Washington’s
   plans to strengthen American influence and military reach across the Asia-Pacific’
   (Scappatura V. (2014)).
   Also, President Obama’s appeal for Britain to remain in the European Community may
   also reflect a concern that Western cultures should remain united.
   54
   Obama said in an interview with the BBC: “Having the United Kingdom in the
   European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the
   transatlantic union,” He said Britain being inside the EU had helped make the world a
   safer and more prosperous place since World War Two (James W. and Cooney P.
   (2015)).
   French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a very astute observation in the 18th
   century when he stated: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. I consider
   the leaderships of the global establishment including academia are almost all without
   exception ideologically captured by the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist agenda (Rousseau J.
   (18th Century)).
   In my view, today’s world can be likened to the pre-second world war period when
   George Orwell (1946) described the totalitarian mind-set of the intellectuals of his day
   in his article, ‘The Prevention of Literature’. He comments that ‘a bought mind is a
   spoiled mind’ and he stated:
   “But what is sinister… is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom
   liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the
   other. They are not in favor of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert
   themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the
   totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from
   the intellectuals themselves” (Orwell G. (1946)).
   Furthermore, almost without exception the minds of the discontented, including
   virtually all activists, seem to have ossified during the Cold War when capitalism, the
   Corporations and the very rich were often the target of left discontent.
   While many activists and the discontented seem to understand economic globalization
   and the rise of the Corporations there seems remarkably little understanding of political
   globalization which saw the rise of a social class, ‘secular, liberal collectivists’, which
   was virtually ‘below the radar’ and in the shadows of the Corporations, to dominate
   domestically and globally, the UN bureaucracy, the European Union and an emerging
   East Asia Community, which is to include Australia and New Zealand.
   Consequently, with the rare exception, animal, climate change, environmental activists
   55
   and other discontented have not, in my view, adapted to the new politically globalized
   world.
   Put simply, while the Corporations may well be the direct or immediate cause of many
   of the problems described by activists and the discontented e.g. exploitation, global
   warming, the decimation of the animal population, environmental problems etc., it was
   really the distant cause or what could loosely be called ‘the rules of the game’ e.g.
   international human rights law, determined by domestic liberal collectivists and
   international bodies such as the UN, which is where the real power resides.
   In my view, it is the ‘rules of the game’, such as the considerable emphasis placed on
   economic globalization, which has allowed Corporations to gain so much global
   dominance particularly by a negation of individual self-determination, the small
   entrepreneur and competition in the domestic free market.
   An ethical emphasis on ‘bottom-up’ development, small business and small farming
   practices, could well help solve many of the problems described by activists as the new
   ideas of small business would very likely further the development of human knowledge
   and find solutions to these problems.
   Ethical human rights, which ensures both sufficient ‘survival rights’ and self-help
   rights’’, will help ensure that all counties ‘pull their weight’ in the development of
   human knowledge which can be an extremely onerous task often involving challenges
   to the status quo and powerful interest groups sometimes a near impossibility in
   totalitarian societies demanding almost absolute compliance.
   An emphasis on ethical ‘bottom-up’ development is very likely to result in creative
   growth replacing exploitation, less emphasis on big business which may help cause
   global warming, while perhaps more small farming practices may also lead to less
   environmental damage and habitat loss and help protect the animal population from
   further decline.
   The London Zoological Society (ZSL) stated in its new Living Planet Index: “..
   populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have declined by an
   average of 52%. Populations of freshwater species have suffered an even worse fall of
   76%’. The report also stated that ‘habitat loss and hunting have reduced tigers from
   56
   100,000 a century ago to just 3,000”.
   The report shows that the biggest recorded threat to biodiversity comes from the
   combined impacts of habitat loss and degradation, driven by what WWF [World-Wide
   Fund for Nature] calls unsustainable human consumption (Harrabin R. (2014)).
   While scientists at UCLA state that the carbon dioxide level has been rising since the
   industrial revolution. Assistant Professor Aradhna Tripati stated: “Prior to the
   Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level
   was about 280 parts per million. That figure had changed very little over the previous
   1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been
   rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend”, (Wolpert S.
   (2009)).
   It seems remarkable that given the urgency attached to global warming that to my
   knowledge there has been relatively little discussion of the alternative ethical emphasis
   on bottom-up development rather than the Corporations.
   It appears that the UN’s ‘hidden’ collectivist ideology which opposes the small
   entrepreneur and bottom-up development is also determining how climate change
   should be addressed i.e. science seems not exempt from ideological capture.
   Expressing this urgency regarding the climate on 8 May 2014 in his article ‘Join the
   Climate Race to the Top’ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that there was still
   a chance to address climate change. He stated:
   “Everything is at stake. We may not get a second chance. The more we delay, the
   more we will pay.
   Let’s focus not on the obstacles we face, but on what we know from experience is
   possible when we call on our creativity, ingenuity and, most of all, our collective will.
   It’s time for leaders to lead – and it’s time for each one of us to become a leader. Step
   up to the challenge. Join the climate race to the top”. (Ban Ki-moon. (2014)).

My post on the Patriotically Correct Radio Show: Why not peacefully besiege the Fake Media, including Big Tech as well as the UN. Whereas Trump emphasizes sovereignty the Democrats are globalists which stems from the UN. 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”: 5 ” We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people” (p73 of my book). The latter is part of the One World Government Agenda as are Agendas 21 and 30 while the Great Reset will also require a OWG. I am posting my book in sections for free on my blog: https://outsiderethicalhumanrights.home.blog. In my view, rather than besieging the US capital it could prove more productive in peacefully besieging the fake media, including big tech as well as the UN. My book shows the enormous deceit of the UN which makes their intention to preside over a New World Order as ludicrous.

My post on Riccardo Bosi: Rather than besieging the US capital it may have been more productive besieging the fake media including big tech. Also given that the UN is wanting a New World Order why not besiege the UN.