Human Rights Transparency to expose cultural cleansing of Genius and Greatness.
Anthony Ravlich | 03.03.2015 18:05 | Repression | Social Struggles | World
I consider Human Rights Transparency is needed. Some interpretations of the UDHR, in accordance with latter, emphasize individual self-determination but the neoliberal variants seek to culturally cleanse society of the latter, and therefore Genius and Greatness.
Human Rights Transparency needed to expose cultural cleansing of Genius and Greatness.
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I promote an ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism. The following are some posts and comments:
On 23 February posted the following on Anthony Ravlich Google+ and social media:
Human Rights Transparency is needed as cultural cleansing means little place for Genius or Greatness in Today’s World of Profound Mediocrity.
Despite the Great Choir of Indifference for Truth I am nearing completing my book and afterwards I am seeking to have an open public debate (so people can judge authenticity) with leadership of human rights organizations regarding gifted, highly intelligent victims of cultural cleansing some of whom are likely seek accountability for their near constant humiliation, sometimes with profound consequences.
All human rights organizations should be, in my view, Human Rights Transparent. For example, ethical human rights, development, globalization (see below) which takes liberalism forward both emphasize individual self-determination in accordance with the UDHR, whereas America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism (the latter, in my view, profoundly mediocre), both with a hidden collectivist agenda, flout the UDHR and seek to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination e.g. there would be no place for Genius or Greatness [also, profoundly, I believe, the UN's neoliberal absolutism seeks to eliminate God and The Universal Truth].
(Also, see Anthony Ravlich Google+ which describes UN’s hidden collectivist agenda. In my view, virtually all the leadership within States, which belong to the UN, are captured by this ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ but will not talk about it even if they don’t like it).
The following are some responses to the above post ‘Human Rights Transparency needed…..’ by members of human rights organizations on linkedin:
Zahurul Alam , President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC), Independent University, Dhaka:
Dear Anthony, I appreciate your initiative. The summary provides your viewpoint on current HR situation and the nature of engagement of some of the actors. May I suggest you to discuss HR situation in the developing countries and the attitude of global HR actors to those as well. Are those actors well conversant with the nature and dimensions of HR in the 'Third World' countries, should they not upgrade themselves in terms of knowledge prior to getting involved in any manner in HR issues in the developing countries?
(PS. My response on Linkedin was not permitted however, at his request, I sent Dr Alam a very rough draft of a chapter in my forthcoming book on Bangladesh. I consider the Awami League government is following the UN’s neoliberal absolutism)
ADJE AYAO AGBOKOUSSE , Support Unit Coordinator in Electoral Processes at the Ministry of Territorial Administration, Decentalized, Togo (the following has been translated into English from French):
The UDHR has given rights to every human being regardless of their origin, color, race, philosophy, opinion etc. This was at a time when after the second world war and the fear of a new tragedy, the whole world would [not] want a repetition of a new drama. More than a half a century has past. The world narrowly escaped disaster on several occasions with the creation of two blocks. Face tan selfishness of the rich countries which the UN can she find solutions? Here is the problem!!!
Zakariyehasan Hasan , Social Construction Human Rights UDHR, UK.
Every individual and institution must accept responsibility for caring for creation, and it is a responsibility that must mature on the basis of the global dimension of the present ecological crisis and the consequent necessity to meet it on a worldwide level, since all beings are interdependent in the universal order established by creator.
The following is a discussion on my recent article, ‘Message of Profound Importance to UN’. I responded to both but, and what is happening more frequently on linkedin human rights organizations, my responses are being excluded.
Sandra M. Corder , Student at Ashford University, Washington DC.
Why should terrorists be told anything as they are no more than rabid dogs who contain no logic? To use the term "Islamic terrorist" is an injustice to the Islam religion. Your opinion falls short in that you use the same term as those ignorant to the truth of Islam. Christians within the global community use their religion to justify inequality and injustices against "those who are different" which is a form of terrorism as they target their victims due to race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Our Creator, whether one calls Him Allah, YAHWEH or GOD does not need humanity to help Him out. Secularism, from my personal perspective, is organized religion as spirituality is a level experienced only to those who choose to live by the code of peace, compassion and mercy.
What is the Universal Truth? There seems to be variety of opinionated groups with their own Universal Truth. Conservative Christians are no different from those mongrels who usurp the Islamic faith in that they deny that human beings are equal by categorizations; refusing to see females as important, etc. So, the Universal Truth is dependent on who chooses to use it and how.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
Anthony,
There is nothing "collectivist" about keeping the eternal and useless religious squabbles and beliefs out of rational political debate. It comes from the Enlightenment, which was anything but collectivist. Everybody knows that.
Your thinking isn't straight - or perhaps you're just a cheap manipulator. Because which of the many competing "Universal Truth"s are you referring to? Let me guess - one of the many competing christian "Universal Truths". One of the reasons we need the UN in the first place is because of the violent competition between these "Universasl Truth"s.
In western societies you can believe whatever you want. Feel free to put your faith in any god(s), santa claus or the eastern bunny - or in one of the many ideologies fostered by human thought. Your beliefs, however, should never be imposed upon the rest of us, who may have other beliefs. That a belief is religious doesn't give it precedence to other beliefs. They are not a valid political arguments and should never be so in the free world. This is also pretty trivial.
For the first time in centuries we now have a situation (at least in some parts of the world) where I don't need to follow the "truths" of you or other people with their feet planted solidly in the deep blue sky. We have achieved this by focusing on the individual rather than on a (number of) religious collective(s).
The irony of it all is that the secularization, that you scorn, is the only way in which all religious people can be free to practice their religions when and where ever they want. But you probably don't really want that. You want to take the cheap and quick route to having your way by imposing your beliefs and "truths" on the rest of us by calling them "Universal". This is of course highly un-democratic and anti-western.
My friend - you ARE the problem.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
Sandra,
Secularism is embraced by religious as well as non-religous people and it makes no sense to call it a "religion". It is a concept introduced because of practical needs. To put it differently:
If not believing in god is religion, then I have a hobby: It is to NOT collect stamps.
By the way - why not eliminate the notion of a "creator"?
Sandra M. Corder , Student at Ashford University, Washington DC.
Michael, I agree with your explanation of secularism but it is also a whip used by those [of all religions] to beat non-religious folks for not falling in line.
I use "Creator" when I do not want to offend because not everyone shares and/or are aware of my belief. There are times when I do use GOD or Heavenly Father when I feel it is necessary. I believe it is never right to force one's belief upon another nor is it ever right to demean another's belief unless it's downright insane; like those on U.S. television: Fox [faux] News. I'm pretty sure you've heard of them. They're the morons who were talking about "no go zones" in certain European cities.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
@Sandra
Point taken :-)
The following was a response to my article, ‘Discussing ethical human rights and change in Pakistan following reported Taliban deadly violence’, Auckland Indymedia, 1 Jan , 2015,
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3389
Robert Higgins Member Board of Directors at Human Rights League of the Horn of Africa:
As if there wasn't enuff confusion over what human rights are you want to introduce the term "ethical human rights"? Are there human... [the rest of this comment could not be located because my computer was hacked some time ago and unless I take a copy very soon it disappears]
On 01/06/15 3:16 AM, anthony ravlich stated privately:
--------------------
Well, my reply did not appear publicly - this has happened to me before on linkedin on several occasions but the following was my reply -unfortunately you will be unable to see my response to Cynthia. My reply was: "You may dislike the term ethical human rights but you may agree with what it represents - that everyone should have, at least, the core minimum of all the rights in the UD.
Human rights in international human rights law are, in my view, unethical when they are politicized i.e. favor certain groups/elites. Also, people, even if they belong to a collective, are, in my view, still individuals and some may seek greater freedom and could decide on an Islamic political party with an ethical human rights base and in so doing they would be, in my view, choosing freedom over slavery as would any other political party, including religious party, that did so. Furthermore, while the members of UN General Assembly have every right to their personal view they do not have the right, in my view, to claim the authority of the UDHR when there is a hidden collectivist agenda in international law, virtually indisputable, which involves the cultural cleansing the world of individual self-determination (see Anthony Ravlich Google+). The UDHR emphasizes individual rights not the collective. I am also a human rights author and have just asked for further two months to finish my present book which will describe the above very fully".
Robert Higgins Member Board of Directors at Human Rights League of the Horn of Africa , January 7, 2015 5:40 AM, stated:
Anthony,
I believe the UDHR is flawed in its presentation and in the list of rights. Specifically, articles 22-28 are not universal human rights. I did my own objective analysis of what fundamental rights every person is born with and published the result in my book "Human Rights, What Are They Really?" These are the only fundamental rights I believe in. Islam ignores some of these rights, e.g., freedom of conscience, and should not obtain political power where Islamic religious prescription would be forced onto everyone.
Robert
(Some of my more recent articles are: ’Ethical human rights made simple’, Scoop New Zealand, 6 Feb 2015, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1502/S00082/ethical-human-rights-made-simple.htm ; ‘Gifted, very bright victims may seek accountability’, Ireland Indymedia, 18 Feb 2015, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105271
Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I promote an ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism. The following are some posts and comments:
On 23 February posted the following on Anthony Ravlich Google+ and social media:
Human Rights Transparency is needed as cultural cleansing means little place for Genius or Greatness in Today’s World of Profound Mediocrity.
Despite the Great Choir of Indifference for Truth I am nearing completing my book and afterwards I am seeking to have an open public debate (so people can judge authenticity) with leadership of human rights organizations regarding gifted, highly intelligent victims of cultural cleansing some of whom are likely seek accountability for their near constant humiliation, sometimes with profound consequences.
All human rights organizations should be, in my view, Human Rights Transparent. For example, ethical human rights, development, globalization (see below) which takes liberalism forward both emphasize individual self-determination in accordance with the UDHR, whereas America’s neoliberalism and the UN’s neoliberal absolutism (the latter, in my view, profoundly mediocre), both with a hidden collectivist agenda, flout the UDHR and seek to culturally cleanse society of individual self-determination e.g. there would be no place for Genius or Greatness [also, profoundly, I believe, the UN's neoliberal absolutism seeks to eliminate God and The Universal Truth].
(Also, see Anthony Ravlich Google+ which describes UN’s hidden collectivist agenda. In my view, virtually all the leadership within States, which belong to the UN, are captured by this ‘hidden collectivist agenda’ but will not talk about it even if they don’t like it).
The following are some responses to the above post ‘Human Rights Transparency needed…..’ by members of human rights organizations on linkedin:
Zahurul Alam , President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC), Independent University, Dhaka:
Dear Anthony, I appreciate your initiative. The summary provides your viewpoint on current HR situation and the nature of engagement of some of the actors. May I suggest you to discuss HR situation in the developing countries and the attitude of global HR actors to those as well. Are those actors well conversant with the nature and dimensions of HR in the 'Third World' countries, should they not upgrade themselves in terms of knowledge prior to getting involved in any manner in HR issues in the developing countries?
(PS. My response on Linkedin was not permitted however, at his request, I sent Dr Alam a very rough draft of a chapter in my forthcoming book on Bangladesh. I consider the Awami League government is following the UN’s neoliberal absolutism)
ADJE AYAO AGBOKOUSSE , Support Unit Coordinator in Electoral Processes at the Ministry of Territorial Administration, Decentalized, Togo (the following has been translated into English from French):
The UDHR has given rights to every human being regardless of their origin, color, race, philosophy, opinion etc. This was at a time when after the second world war and the fear of a new tragedy, the whole world would [not] want a repetition of a new drama. More than a half a century has past. The world narrowly escaped disaster on several occasions with the creation of two blocks. Face tan selfishness of the rich countries which the UN can she find solutions? Here is the problem!!!
Zakariyehasan Hasan , Social Construction Human Rights UDHR, UK.
Every individual and institution must accept responsibility for caring for creation, and it is a responsibility that must mature on the basis of the global dimension of the present ecological crisis and the consequent necessity to meet it on a worldwide level, since all beings are interdependent in the universal order established by creator.
The following is a discussion on my recent article, ‘Message of Profound Importance to UN’. I responded to both but, and what is happening more frequently on linkedin human rights organizations, my responses are being excluded.
Sandra M. Corder , Student at Ashford University, Washington DC.
Why should terrorists be told anything as they are no more than rabid dogs who contain no logic? To use the term "Islamic terrorist" is an injustice to the Islam religion. Your opinion falls short in that you use the same term as those ignorant to the truth of Islam. Christians within the global community use their religion to justify inequality and injustices against "those who are different" which is a form of terrorism as they target their victims due to race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Our Creator, whether one calls Him Allah, YAHWEH or GOD does not need humanity to help Him out. Secularism, from my personal perspective, is organized religion as spirituality is a level experienced only to those who choose to live by the code of peace, compassion and mercy.
What is the Universal Truth? There seems to be variety of opinionated groups with their own Universal Truth. Conservative Christians are no different from those mongrels who usurp the Islamic faith in that they deny that human beings are equal by categorizations; refusing to see females as important, etc. So, the Universal Truth is dependent on who chooses to use it and how.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
Anthony,
There is nothing "collectivist" about keeping the eternal and useless religious squabbles and beliefs out of rational political debate. It comes from the Enlightenment, which was anything but collectivist. Everybody knows that.
Your thinking isn't straight - or perhaps you're just a cheap manipulator. Because which of the many competing "Universal Truth"s are you referring to? Let me guess - one of the many competing christian "Universal Truths". One of the reasons we need the UN in the first place is because of the violent competition between these "Universasl Truth"s.
In western societies you can believe whatever you want. Feel free to put your faith in any god(s), santa claus or the eastern bunny - or in one of the many ideologies fostered by human thought. Your beliefs, however, should never be imposed upon the rest of us, who may have other beliefs. That a belief is religious doesn't give it precedence to other beliefs. They are not a valid political arguments and should never be so in the free world. This is also pretty trivial.
For the first time in centuries we now have a situation (at least in some parts of the world) where I don't need to follow the "truths" of you or other people with their feet planted solidly in the deep blue sky. We have achieved this by focusing on the individual rather than on a (number of) religious collective(s).
The irony of it all is that the secularization, that you scorn, is the only way in which all religious people can be free to practice their religions when and where ever they want. But you probably don't really want that. You want to take the cheap and quick route to having your way by imposing your beliefs and "truths" on the rest of us by calling them "Universal". This is of course highly un-democratic and anti-western.
My friend - you ARE the problem.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
Sandra,
Secularism is embraced by religious as well as non-religous people and it makes no sense to call it a "religion". It is a concept introduced because of practical needs. To put it differently:
If not believing in god is religion, then I have a hobby: It is to NOT collect stamps.
By the way - why not eliminate the notion of a "creator"?
Sandra M. Corder , Student at Ashford University, Washington DC.
Michael, I agree with your explanation of secularism but it is also a whip used by those [of all religions] to beat non-religious folks for not falling in line.
I use "Creator" when I do not want to offend because not everyone shares and/or are aware of my belief. There are times when I do use GOD or Heavenly Father when I feel it is necessary. I believe it is never right to force one's belief upon another nor is it ever right to demean another's belief unless it's downright insane; like those on U.S. television: Fox [faux] News. I'm pretty sure you've heard of them. They're the morons who were talking about "no go zones" in certain European cities.
Michael Rugaard , Head of Secretariat at Danske Erhvervsakademier / Danish Business Academies
@Sandra
Point taken :-)
The following was a response to my article, ‘Discussing ethical human rights and change in Pakistan following reported Taliban deadly violence’, Auckland Indymedia, 1 Jan , 2015,
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3389 Robert Higgins Member Board of Directors at Human Rights League of the Horn of Africa:
As if there wasn't enuff confusion over what human rights are you want to introduce the term "ethical human rights"? Are there human... [the rest of this comment could not be located because my computer was hacked some time ago and unless I take a copy very soon it disappears]
On 01/06/15 3:16 AM, anthony ravlich stated privately:
--------------------
Well, my reply did not appear publicly - this has happened to me before on linkedin on several occasions but the following was my reply -unfortunately you will be unable to see my response to Cynthia. My reply was: "You may dislike the term ethical human rights but you may agree with what it represents - that everyone should have, at least, the core minimum of all the rights in the UD.
Human rights in international human rights law are, in my view, unethical when they are politicized i.e. favor certain groups/elites. Also, people, even if they belong to a collective, are, in my view, still individuals and some may seek greater freedom and could decide on an Islamic political party with an ethical human rights base and in so doing they would be, in my view, choosing freedom over slavery as would any other political party, including religious party, that did so. Furthermore, while the members of UN General Assembly have every right to their personal view they do not have the right, in my view, to claim the authority of the UDHR when there is a hidden collectivist agenda in international law, virtually indisputable, which involves the cultural cleansing the world of individual self-determination (see Anthony Ravlich Google+). The UDHR emphasizes individual rights not the collective. I am also a human rights author and have just asked for further two months to finish my present book which will describe the above very fully".
Robert Higgins Member Board of Directors at Human Rights League of the Horn of Africa , January 7, 2015 5:40 AM, stated:
Anthony,
I believe the UDHR is flawed in its presentation and in the list of rights. Specifically, articles 22-28 are not universal human rights. I did my own objective analysis of what fundamental rights every person is born with and published the result in my book "Human Rights, What Are They Really?" These are the only fundamental rights I believe in. Islam ignores some of these rights, e.g., freedom of conscience, and should not obtain political power where Islamic religious prescription would be forced onto everyone.
Robert
(Some of my more recent articles are: ’Ethical human rights made simple’, Scoop New Zealand, 6 Feb 2015,
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1502/S00082/ethical-human-rights-made-simple.htm ; ‘Gifted, very bright victims may seek accountability’, Ireland Indymedia, 18 Feb 2015, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105271
Anthony Ravlich
e-mail:
anthony_ravlich@yahoo.com
Homepage:
www.hrc2001.org.nz
