The Occupation - often good hearts but heads not straight due to 'divide and rule' which stems from UN.
'Divide and Rule' at the UN misdirects Occupation's discontent towards two percent.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I posted the following on the social networking sites on 26 November 2013:
"The Occupation - often good hearts but heads not straight due to the 'divide and rule' which stems from the UN.
As I see it the political wing of the UN, the General Assembly, is defining the human rights agenda (women, aids, disability and extreme poverty now prominent) for public sectors while leaving out property rights (Art 17, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) from international human rights law. The latter is to allow the UN specialized agency, the IMF, to exert control over private sectors (globalization and intellectual proerty rights prominent).
Domestically, this allows discontent to be directed towards the Corporations i.e. the 2 per cent, and consequently hide the hegemony of the bureaucrats, who, in my view, are largely descent-based. The latter make the decisions in the UN General Assembly.
While I am prepared to debate this with anyone the elites don't have to, and don't, because 'duties to the community' (Art 29(1), UDHR) has also been excluded from international human rights law".
Further information on the exclusion of property rights from international human rights law i.e. the UN covenants on civil and polical rights and economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as its economic implications can be found in chapter 5, pp146-7, of my book, 'Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights' (Lexington Books, 2008) which was also recommended on the UN website for about two years.
Our council promotes a global ethical human rights to replace what is seen as neoliberal absolutism. A brief description of global ethical human rights can be found in my recent article, 'Comments on Helen Clark's refusal to discuss global ethical human rights' (see internet).
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I posted the following on the social networking sites on 26 November 2013:
"The Occupation - often good hearts but heads not straight due to the 'divide and rule' which stems from the UN.
As I see it the political wing of the UN, the General Assembly, is defining the human rights agenda (women, aids, disability and extreme poverty now prominent) for public sectors while leaving out property rights (Art 17, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) from international human rights law. The latter is to allow the UN specialized agency, the IMF, to exert control over private sectors (globalization and intellectual proerty rights prominent).
Domestically, this allows discontent to be directed towards the Corporations i.e. the 2 per cent, and consequently hide the hegemony of the bureaucrats, who, in my view, are largely descent-based. The latter make the decisions in the UN General Assembly.
While I am prepared to debate this with anyone the elites don't have to, and don't, because 'duties to the community' (Art 29(1), UDHR) has also been excluded from international human rights law".
Further information on the exclusion of property rights from international human rights law i.e. the UN covenants on civil and polical rights and economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as its economic implications can be found in chapter 5, pp146-7, of my book, 'Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights' (Lexington Books, 2008) which was also recommended on the UN website for about two years.
Our council promotes a global ethical human rights to replace what is seen as neoliberal absolutism. A brief description of global ethical human rights can be found in my recent article, 'Comments on Helen Clark's refusal to discuss global ethical human rights' (see internet).
e-mail:
Homepage:
