Australia could be landed with a dependent NZ if we become part of Australia. In my view, we will be like 'an anchor around your neck'. Our collectivist bill of rights, Australia is also seriously considering a bill of rights, is reducing the population to a state of dependency. I consider, if we join with Australia it should be a matter of mutual choice and not out of our desperation by our being reduced to 'third world status' and the 'begging bowl'. But I do think God is defending New Zealand.
Fear of Freedom: collectivist bill of rights reducing New Zealanders to dependency.
Anthony George Ravlich,
Chairperson,
Human Rights Council Inc. (2001, New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City,
New Zealand.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
The following, with a number of additions, constitutes a summary of our council’s submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights due to complete their review of New Zealand in May 2012. I consider every New Zealander should read this submission which is on the website of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/ngos/HRC_New%20Zealand_P... ). My book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) is recommended on the United Nations website http://hrbaportal.org/?page_id=3180. Also, there is a Human Rights Debate: Collectivism versus Individualism taking place in Auckland in September 2010 (see below) Also see three videos by Neithercorp on internet: “Sons of Darkness, Sons of Light”, Collectivism).
As the above submission shows the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was devised to create a ‘tribal New Zealand’: a nation in fear of freedom.
.
The bill of rights focuses on collective rather than individual rights. While individual rights are the focus of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the UN human rights instruments.
Our parliament has little courage with no member prepared to ‘speak out’ about the human rights omitted in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 even though mainstream human rights organizations are now doing so.
Yet this is a time when the Key government is supposed to be conducting a three year constitutional review, including Treaty of Waitangi and bill of rights issues (but not republicanism). It is meant to be open for public debate but the mainstream media says exceedingly little.
But there seems to be another agenda: to reduce New Zealanders to a state of dependency, a nation in darkness, going nowhere and loss of national pride in order to become part of Australia (see below, also our council’s submission to the UN Human Rights Committee March 2010, Scoop, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00178.htm ). But, if this is the case, it should be a choice and not forced on us by reducing the country to ‘third world status’ and the ‘begging bowl’.
And, if it happens, it will be due primarily, in my view, to the failure of the left, ‘tribal’ middle class and ‘tribal’ Maori, who have gained such an enormous hold over the country, to face their fear of freedom, preferring instead lives of dependency on the group.
They conceal this by deflecting blame for social ills towards the Corporations, refusing to debate any human rights truths apart from their own – Maori also conceal it with their warrior claims emphasizing their sporting prowess and frequent hakas.
However, if they adopted the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization that our council promotes they could free themselves from lives of dependency on their ‘tribe’ and join the human family. As stated in the above videos there are about 6,000 cultures in the world not just them.
It was, in my view, primarily their fear of freedom which resulted in the ‘rein of evil’ that New Zealanders have had to endure for over 20 years as evidenced by the brutal treatment of many children in this country, as well as those at the bottom of the social scale (see submission, the New Zealand Tragedy) while ridding the country of the ‘best and brightest’ - those who could pose a major challenge to their dominance (also see my submission).
Also given that Australia has been seriously discussing a bill of rights of their own for some time I will be informing Australians of the focus on collectivism in New Zealand’s bill of rights. And I will also inform them New Zealanders in a state of dependency will be nothing but ‘an anchor around their neck’ just as I consider the dominant ‘tribal’ groups in New Zealand have become for the greater population.
In addition, there will be some fighting for the right to self-determination such as the Republic of New Zealand Party which has adopted the ethical, holistic approach to human rights (see below).
In addition, the victims of the Christchurch earthquakes could prove, despite the terrible aftershocks, if they are able to rebuild Christchurch that New Zealand is not yet ready for the compete state of dependency that is so obviously wanted.
I was a first-hand witness to the New Zealand Tragedy that occurred at the bottom of the social scale which I described in the Auckland High Court in June, 2010, after making a stand on principle. High Court Justice Lyn Stevens (now on the Appeal Court) believed my account and on viewing the terrible social statistics asked me why I had not informed society earlier (see above submission also my submission to the Auckland High Court, ‘Freedom is not an impossible dream’, www.hrc.co.nz ).
I strongly believe God, defending New Zealand, helped me in many ways in my work teaching me forgiveness (and self-forgiveness) which is very important especially when experiencing human rights violations while needing to write and speak with lucidity.
The UN Human Rights Committee has told New Zealand on three occasions since 1993 to include the omitted rights in the bill of rights but were ignored.
These omissions were, I consider, to suit the interests of a ‘bi-cultural’ bureaucratic elite partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi and the dominance of their philosophy of ‘discriminatory collectivism’. The latter by undermining the individual ‘whenever and wherever possible’ is meant to prevent any ‘bottom-up’ challenge to its authority.
This philosophy can be described as: apart from the social status of the group ‘the collective is everything and the individual is nothing or a mere number’. However, in human rights the focus is on the individual who is regarded as a ‘person’.
Also, I strongly believe God regards everyone as having a ‘name’. In my view, this is a ‘evil’ philosophy. And this very ignorant and incompetent bureaucratic elite have utterly no comprehension of what the human spirit is capable of. I hope the residents of Christchurch show them.
The ‘discriminatory collectivism’ is often experienced by New Zealanders as a sense of hopelessness and utter powerlessness to do anything about the extreme negativity that has descended upon them.
But now, in addition to our council, mainstream human rights NGOs are ‘speaking out’. While the NZ Human Rights Commission seek to include some omissions NZ Amnesty International are now asking for the inclusion of all omitted rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights (see the submission for further details).
Also, more recently the NZ Peace Movement is critical of the lack of human rights protections in New Zealand (Questions raised over New Zealand's peace ranking, Newstalk ZB, May 28, 2011, http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyid=197580). While, Professor Margaret Bedggood, on the board of the NZ Human Rights Foundation and on the international board of Amnesty International, speaking as a member of the Third Order of the Society of St. Francis, Anglican Church, suggests human rights could form ‘a useful framework for election year’ (Talking Cents, June 2011, Anglican Diocesan Council, June 2011). The New Zealand elections are due to take place in November 2011.
Academics and politicians who know about the omissions but did no ‘speak out’ should now do so, in my view, and regain the human rights ‘moral high ground’.
A public human rights debate: ‘collectivism versus individualism’, will be held by our council and the Republic of New Zealand Party.
This debate will take place at our second Constitutional Conference for Revolutionary Reform on Saturday, 17th September 2011, the Parlour Room, Methodist Church, cnr Karangahape Rd and Pitt St., Auckland City, between 10am to 5pm. Contacts: Kerry Bevin, President of the Republic of NZ Party, ph (0064) (09) 473 3747, and myself (see below). It certainly seems given the increasing support for the Republic of New Zealand Party is receiving it may be the only political hope New Zealand has.
The Republic of New Zealand Party along with two other minor parties have adopted the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization promoted by our council.
‘Tribal New Zealand’, anti-progress because of the increased independence it gives people, has considerably prioritized its ‘clean and green image’. This has been to the serious detriment of New Zealand’s ‘human rights image’ and has resulted in high levels of needless suffering in New Zealand but still this is not enough, they are still opposing any mining possibilities that exist here.
Our council emphasizes a radical ideas-driven ‘bottom-up’ development. But we also support responsible mining as a way of addressing the high levels of needless suffering that has been created because of the high levels of ignorance that exist here (overseas they will view us as ‘stupid and backward’ and they would, in my view, be absolutely right).
While the more balanced approach to development we promote, we consider, will result in greater respect for the environment globally. As the Dalai Lama who visited Christchurch last Wednesday, June 8, told the victims of the earthquakes – if you do not go forward, you go down. But wisdom is very hard to find in our parliament or the dominant elites.
New Zealand has spent far too much time, at huge cost, trying to address the problems of these ‘tribal’ groups, which are essentially their own because we must consider the nation and people as a whole.
If we do not join Australia these ‘tribal’ groups are not without hope. They should stick with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission who have always supported our council and seem to approve of our ethical, holistic approach to human rights. But the political ‘tribal’ left should thank God for this approach much more than myself because, personally, I just do not have all that much time for them.