Letter to John Key, RE: Mining

Mining – a future for the children. Letter to John Key.

May 6, 2010

Attention: Prime Minister

Dear John Key, RE: Mining

Briefly - I understand I have until May 26 to make submissions re the above.

I fully support a balanced development which provides a future for the children. As I have stated before I consider New Zealand’s situation is desperate – in my view, our first social duty must be to New Zealand and then the global community (although the duty to our individual selves is the most important duty of all). The protests of largely the middle classes indicates a need to ‘capture hearts and minds’ and if reason prevails the mining (with pristine areas protected) will follow.

As you are aware we have very different views regarding beneficiaries and the under classes – their basic human rights must be ensured. In my view, their state of dependency reflects gross social class discrimination and rights omissions so it is only fair to be kind and not have benefits below the poverty line. However, I will be working on some ideas so perhaps these differences could be overcome. But in terms of self-help I consider we have an area of much agreement, namely, the need for development.

I felt very encouraged when you introduced the idea of mining – I consider that when you give hope to the children you give hope to many.

So I also hope you will back the union campaign for KiwiRail to build Auckland's new electric locomotives and railcars. It would be obvious to many that these workers believe in themselves – if you do not back them what message would this send to others who have a dream based on necessary experience and sound research?

I consider that ignorance is the problem. The middle classes, who are now very largely only interested in the human rights that affect them, need to be informed of the social class discrimination and rights omissions as well as lack of human rights education that I have written about in my articles and book because it shows how the middle classes have became so alienated (see below) from the rest of society – they seem unaware how these rights omission have considerably benefited themselves to the considerable detriment of other people’s children or perhaps they fail to make the connection between helping the children and the necessity to mine, which may not be the only option, but the children’s needs are immediate.

Alienation: the problem with being involved with violating the human rights of others is it rebounds on the perpetrators but in a different way – because they have to cover up the truth, loyalty and conformity becomes paramount. They become trapped within the ‘left/right wing neo liberal square’ (for instance, none of our present political parties challenge the present form of globalization which I have shown is ‘elitist and discriminatory’) to the detriment of their freedom of thought, conscience, belief, their ability to dissent, exercise their duty to inform the public with respect to important truths when it is necessary in a democracy to have a well informed public.

They become considerably weaker in terms of their liberal beliefs which they allow to be compromised seeing those outside the group as merely to be used for the interests of their group and its human rights agenda which my work has shown is very discriminatory and in their favor, at least materially. Human beings outside the group are no longer seen as important in themselves and human rights are no longer seen as belonging to the individual simply because they are human but rather, as with themselves, because they belong to a collective.

Other collectives, following the same discriminatory human rights agenda of the dominant ‘so-called liberal’, middle class, professional, bureaucratic elite align themselves according to how they are favored by the dominant elite. The dominant, ‘so-called liberal’ elite become increasingly self-absorbed and narcissistic and owe little duty to the wider society. And having, as individuals, lost their self-belief, having compromised their liberal principles, trust their leaders and cling to their group fearing isolation because the gap between themselves and the rest of society has become too wide to bridge. They become ‘safe’ and ‘timid’ – and prefer to hide within the confines of the establishment and their circle of friends rather than see the reality they have been involved in creating. Their lives are ‘easy’and ‘boring’ and they resign themselves to mediocrity – reaching one’s full potential and consequently the nation’s full potential is put in the far ‘too hard’ basket. They compensate for lack of substance and truth by inflating their image. They are unable to ‘rise above their class’ and this probably explain why some of New Zealand’s greatest leaders came from outside this group.

It is bizarre but such ‘so-called liberals’ now begin to deny the more independent peoples in society the very individual freedoms that helped these ‘liberals’ gain power in the first place – simply because they are very concerned others may use these individual freedoms to gain power as they did or expose certain truths they want kept in elite circles as my work has done – so I am kept on the fringes of society. Once perhaps freedom loving they now fear freedom and any truth that may set them free. They may reason that the positives outweigh the negatives but there is a minority of the elite, perhaps more the intellectuals, who do wish to reach their full intellectual and holistic development and want to be able to ‘know what they are doing’ professionally and should not be denied from doing so under the threat of a ‘suicide drop’ when excluded by the group.

Sometimes those in the middle classes, who may be aware of such social class discrimination argue that ‘helping is a personal choice’ and they give in a private capacity however ‘it is not enough that justice is done, it should be seen to be done’ – this is why the rights omissions I describe in my work need to be included in domestic and international human rights law and the people educated in human rights because, at present, the ‘so-called liberal’ elite are getting away with so very much because they are not being held to account and consequently as has been said, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Further discussion in relation to the ‘tall poppy syndrome’ and social class discrimination and the mass exodus of New Zealander can be found in my articles.

When the truth of the social class discrimination and the rights exclusions are more fully known to New Zealanders it is likely to have a considerable impact – as wrongs previously kept secret do - especially because New Zealand is such a relatively small society despite having made every attempt by the establishment to hide from the truth by removing ‘face-to-face’ relationships and the relegating of ‘unsafe truths’ to the fringes of society – the internet and talk-back radio. However, increasing their ‘face-to-face’ relationships with those of different classes is a way for more enlightened members of the middle classes to further their holistic development and retain their humanity. Some of ur best professional groups such as doctors, teachers etc. are often because they have much people contact with different classes in society.

I am convinced I have a very strong argument and in the near future I will have the opportunity to present it on a Tri TV show – the Hope Series – which will be dealing with the plight of children in this country. We also hope to raise this mining issue because it is vitally important that the children have a future.

So first, in my view, people and in particular the middle classes need to face the truth - after all if it was racism or sexism the latter e.g. the Greens and Labor Parties, would be the first to point this out – but discussion about social class discrimination, of course, directly affects their interests.

Human Wrongs:

(1) My book and articles (see references below) show how the children of beneficiaries are being discriminated against on the grounds of social class, omitted from the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, affirmative action for women and Maori was also class based (see my articles). This prohibited ground of non-discrimination with respect to social origin defined as ‘social status at birth’, which can be found in numerous UN human rights instruments, is often simply called social class discrimination. The left wing neo liberal elite and the class orientated in New Zealand , which can be found across the political spectrum in varying degrees (less so in National and Act Parties), have a particular affinity with Maori who traditionally discriminate on similar grounds i.e. descent, who also need to be aware of the affects of this discrimination on their children. According to He Hinatore ki te Ao Maori A Glimpse into the Maori World ‘The Maori social structure was based on descent, seniority and the kinship groupings’ and ‘A social hierarchy governed Maori society’ and ‘Rank and leadership was based on seniority of descent from founding ancestors’ (New Zealand Justice Department, Jun 16, 2009). This is closely related to social class discrimination.

General Comment No.20 (Section 26), Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ states: “The prohibited ground of birth also includes descent, especially on the basis of caste and analogous systems of inherited status. States parties should take steps, for instance, to prevent, prohibit and eliminate discriminatory practices directed against members of descent-based communities and act against dissemination of ideas of superiority and inferiority on the basis of descent”.

Perhaps the ignorance in New Zealand regarding social class is partly culturally ingrained but also due, unlike the British class system, to the failure of NZ to officially recognize the existence of class even though under classes can be seen in most of the cities of NZ (see my articles).

With respect to our council’s submission to the UN Human Rights Committee’s review of New Zealand’s human rights record: Carolin Schleker, Associate Human Rights Officer, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on March 19 indicated she had attended a meeting of New Zealanders (it is unsure whether this was an official meeting) during the time of the UN Human Rights Committee review seemed quite definite that the New Zealanders were questioned regarding the exclusion of the ground of non-discrimination with respect to social origin from our domestic human rights law But this did not appear in the UN Press Releases so I am awaiting the publication of the Summary Records of New Zealand’s human rights review at the UN.

(2) In addition, is the failure to fund section 5(a) HRA 1993 ‘human rights education’ which I have written much about. Also why is it that the poor cannot have a voice of their own in the mainstream media so they can explain to the democratic majority their side of the story? New Zealand’s elite have, in my view, an enormous fear of the truth – but unless this is faced how does one move forward?

(3) As can be seen from an excluded right in the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 Article 1 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see below) peoples have the right to ‘freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. Those who support this Article which also states that ‘all peoples have the right to self-determination’ (which means the peoples of the planet, the peoples of New Zealand, the peoples of a subgroup such as Maori) would surely not want to deny themselves their choice of what direction, if any, development takes. In my view with respect to the right to development no group’s human rights should be prioritized to such an extent that it creates serious violations for other groups (i.e. the civil and political rights equivalent of the core minimum obligations in economic, social and cultural rights). For instance, I consider this occurred when development in New Zealand was considerably prioritized for the middle class, professional sector and the Corporations but resulted in the creation of an under class – when this happens the State becomes responsible for mass human rights violations because members of this underclass no longer are able access to many of their rights especially with ‘user-pays’ and considerable social class discrimination.

In the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/NZL/CO/5) on the 25 March 2010 in ‘C. the principle subjects of concern and recommendations’ New Zealand is asked to include all covenant rights in domestic law. The Committee states: “ 7. The Committee reiterates its concern that the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) does not reflect all Covenant rights”. It added: “The State party should enact legislation giving full effect to all Covenant rights….”.

PS. Given the recent job losses in the public service I am concerned at the ‘fall out’ - as I have stated elsewhere it is a very long way down – I am particularly concerned for women because I realize (even if some refuse to recognize such gender differences) they will be very vulnerable if they have ‘break downs’. For instance, it is important none are subject to social class discrimination – in my view, ‘the old boys and girls network’ have been considerably favored re social class rather than ability. I very much doubt whether any of the latter network will be losing their jobs. Could the PSA take some responsibility for this ‘fall out’? – I am thinking of the possibility of women’s refuges taking some responsibility to assist such women – perhaps those remaining in the bureaucracy could donate to these NGOs. If I have any other ideas I will let you know.Thanks,

Anthony Ravlich

Chairperson Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand)

References:

My book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ is on the official United Nations website: http://hrbaportal.org/?p=528 to decide whether to seek amendments to the OP. Chapter 5 of the book deals with the OP. Also, my article, ‘Global Systematic Discrimination against the Poor’ which follows on from chapter 5 can be found on the following link, www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0909/S00041.htm. In addition, see our submission, which deals with civil and political rights virtually the only human rights in our domestic law, to UN Human Rights Com mittee’s review of New Zealand’s human rights record in March, 2010, www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00178.htm).

Development:

UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: PART 1 Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

ENDS

© Scoop Media