Global ethical human rights will give the Lost Generation of Youth a future.


Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658



I posted on the social networking sites as part of ‘community engagement’ (also see appendix for brief description of global ethical human rights):

“Don’t go Underground become Mainstream. The following song seems to be describing the ‘lost generation of youth’ London Grammar – ‘Wasting My Young Years’( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkeDBwsIaZw ) –
2,134,106 views - some lyrics ‘Maybe I’m wasting my young years…it
doesn’t matter…chasing old ideas…it doesn’t matter… don’t you know its only fear’.

I will be at the Verona Coffee bar , K Rd., near St Steven’s arcade, between 4pm to 5.30pm Friday and Saturday if anyone wants to discuss the following.

The young are being subjected to global mass discrimination. When I challenged Helen Clark [Head of the United Nations Development Program] recently after her lecture at Auckland University – I mentioned this discrimination and she seemed aware it was a major problem but seemed to have no solutions [see my article, “Comments on Helen Clarks refusal to discuss global ethical human rights”, posted on the internet].

I expect more of this ‘lost generation’ entering the under classes of their respective countries and the neoliberal absolutism which has been created i.e. the whole universal declaration of human rights having to be compatible with IMF policies, will almost certainly, in my view, result in a global, albeit ‘secular’, caste system.

More lost generations seem inevitable unless the young decide they want a future and try new ideas relevant to today’s world. In my view, change could happen relatively quickly then – the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (essentially a fight for your individual rights against the State and the world) could be adopted and simply communicated around the world.

The UN cannot continue to fail to inform the mainstream of this universal approach because they will then be held to account for any revolutionary violence that occurs - Helen Clark just ignored the question when I asked why the UN says nothing about global ethical human rights despite its increasing support , some very high profile – they have no duty to tell you so they don’t - so it’s a matter of letting as many know about the global ethical human rights around the world while we still have the internet – its ‘bottom-up’ so many small businesses will be created which employ many and the country will move forward – while removal of social class discrimination (and removal of discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status i.e. wealth) would permit upward mobility allowing the ‘best and brightest’ instead of the utter paranoia that has existed about those they feel they cannot control e.g. many bright people from good middle class homes have ended up in the psychiatric system while others at the bottom of the social ladder have been crushed –- they will find out what’s been done to them because I’m already telling some of them.

It is really a macabre understanding of peace which considers that crushing potential, which also gets rid of the best and brightest, creates peaceful societies in fact it creates slaves e.g. the dalits or untouchables, and States become dangerous because they are no longer held to account e.g. North Korea.

Its far removed from seeing human beings as sometimes motivated by altruism, unconditional love being a part of us all and people having greatness deep within and being capable of great things and who can personally adopt a non-extreme violence approach (except in self-defense) – rather this macabre understanding sees a need to control people absolutely.
Those interested in hearing about some of the topics of my forthcoming book which describes really world shaking decisions that have been made at the UN and which are happening right now with the public being kept virtually completely ignorant, my previous book, Freedom from our social prisons...is available in libraries and although on UN website for 2 yrs but no review was done in NZ's mainstream media such is the fear of truth”.


Appendix

The ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (briefly, global ethical human rights) is universal, includes all the human rights, but, realistically, emphasizes first addressing the most serious violations which is a commonsense interpretation of the declaration.

The ethical approach was first introduced in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) which was recommended on the UN website for about two years.

It gives people a choice. Being universal I regard global ethical human rights as a far more authentic interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) whereas neoliberalism requires the latter to be made compatible with the IMF’s neoliberal economic policies.

Whereas ethical human rights seeks to help people, in my view, neoliberalism uses human rights as a political weapon both against its own people and internationally primarily due to social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (wealth).

For those who are not very intellectually inclined or perhaps, understandably, are very cynical of intellectuals, the artists seem able to describe it in a more convincing way for many people .For example, the recent popular music from the UK and America is now often describing the times as revolutionary (although compared to the punk era somewhat low-key) e.g. ‘there’s an emptiness up there’, ‘if there’s a future we want it’, ‘its not a funeral - it’s the revolution you know’, ‘dreaming of the things we could be’, ‘if we keep holding on ….we’ll work it out…its worth it’, ‘all I need is something to believe in’ etc etc.

In my view, youth do not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ - simply look at the plan below and if they like it all they need to do is verify its accuracy and provide the world, global youth in particular, with this choice (via the internet).

This ethical plan means that, in my view, the revolution can be non-violent - the UN cannot continue to ignore an alternative which is based on universal human rights truth (for all) rather than politics (for a small minority) otherwise they will be held to account for any revolutionary violence that occurs.

However, I consider, and where it can be perhaps best understood by people not familiar with human rights, ethical human rights can be seen to equate with the Golden Rule which the major religions believe in (in fact, it may even be the origins of the UDHR).

The Golden Rule states: “One should treat others as one would like to be treated oneself” (‘The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions’, Teaching Values.com, 6 April, 2013,  http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html ).

According to global ethical human rights if you do not have, at the very least, the ethical core minimums of the human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you would be living in a situation of extreme violence (this includes extreme poverty) which equals slavery.
So according to the Golden Rule if you do not want to be treated as a slave then you should not treat others as slaves.

However, while under global ethical human rights all individuals have duties, the State has the ultimate duty to ensure all within the country have their core minimums human rights although it is also prepared to help the global community, where necessary, to achieve theirs.

Global ethical human rights – a brief description:

(1) An ethical human rights requires the core minimum (at least) of all the rights in Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all. This would entail survival with dignity PLUS the added dignity of self-help (including a voice in the mainstream, without any discrimination). This would be sufficient for the individual (and consequently the State and the World) to reach his/her full potential. The core minimum rights are ensured but higher levels need to be earned.

The principle involved is the equal status of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights at the level of the core minimum obligations of the State.

Both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ are encapsulated in Article 22, UDHR, which states: “Everyone has the right to social security and is entitled to realization…..of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensible for his dignity and the free development of his personality”.

To ensure what I see as the present dominant elites, which are descent-based, in State bureaucracies and at the United Nations, do not act outside the rule of law non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin would often either need to be included in human rights law or, if it is, properly implemented. This would prohibit social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (wealth).

(2) There is an emphasis on an ethical ‘bottom-up’ development e.g. small social/ economic entrepreneurs, small/medium business, and new, original ideas to forge new paths into the future with such development of human knowledge (e.g. space travel may be necessary for human survival) to be based on the individual rather than determined ‘top-down’. This would, in my view, mean far greater employment.

For example, Article 2(1) of the Declaration on the Rights to Development describes ‘bottom-up’ development: “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the rights to development”.

Affirmative action can then be applied where, in my view, it is meant to - those who suffered the worst discrimination which includes those 'tall poppies' excluded by the establishment and who, in my experience, were treated just as badly. Many of the latter would likely employ the others.

(3) An ethical globalization requires an ethical human rights 'bottom-line' for all States - to protect against extreme ‘top-down’ control by the State as well as ensuring fair competition without exploitation (e.g. China and India would not get an unfair competitive advantage by exploiting their workforce). Ethical globalization does not require regionalization so States do not have to forgo considerable national sovereignty.

This is not a return to protectionism. For example, people can be informed e.g. labelling of goods, where imports are made, for example, with child or sweatshop labour. As well as ensuring no such exploitation takes place it provides opportunities for domestic production.

(4) There are also duties. Article 29(1) states: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible” i.e. all have duties including groups and associations, the Corporations, the mainstream media, public bodies including Academia, as well as political, racial, religious groups etc.

Consequently, individuals can pursue their dreams ethically thereby overcoming a major criticism of individualism that it is freedom without social responsibility.