Christchurch and second-class citizenship
I demand the right to inform Chch post-quake
victims of the human rights truth and ethical plan
By Anthony Ravlich
14 September 2014
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
In my personal opinion, if New Zealanders cannot stand up for Christchurch then they are not worthy to be called New Zealanders.
After four years there are large number of Christchurch residents, subjected to major forms of discrimination, whose earthquake damaged homes have not been fixed with a number described as ‘living in a garage, in a caravan or on the couch’.
A recent New Zealand television show, Campbell Live, ‘Christchurch, four years on’ after numerous and tragic earthquakes invited residents of Christchurch, some at ‘breaking-point’, who were still living in earthquake damaged homes with unresolved insurance claims and difficulties with the Earthquake Commission.
The packed hall was said to represent only a small minority of those suffering such problems (‘Christchurch, four years on’, 3 News, Campbell Live,http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/full-video-christchurch-4-years-on-2014090420 ).Other major social problems are described below.
I consider a collectivist ideology has led to political paralysis permitting the creation of second-class citizenship for many in post-quake Christchurch.
In my view, and put simply, rather than a society that lifts you up, which, together with the kindness you would expect for post-quake victims, it’s become a cruel, put down society designed to ‘push down’ many to a lower level of society (this, in my view, should signal to residents that a very sick ideology is operating!).
Ideological-capture of politicians has, in my view, resulted in political paralysis. They are captured by a collectivist ideology (neoliberalism) whose major purpose, in my view, is to culturally cleanse society of the individual self-determination (see, ‘Cultural cleansing of individual self-determination driven by the bureaucrats’, Auckland Indymedia, 4 Sept 2014, http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/3116 ).
And, in my view, it creates a people unable to help themselves and destined for second-class citizenship. I see exploitation and a dependent population rather than creative growth and an independent people as being ideologically determined for the residents of Christchurch.
I am a human rights author and activist for 21 years and have travelled to Christchurch three times since the first earthquake and have written a number of articles promoting an emphasis on a ‘bottom-up’ approach to development, firmly based on the Universal Declaration, while warning residents of New Zealand’s sinister bill of rights.
Yet despite top support for the plan I am banned from the mainstream media and isolated by the establishment for simply wanting to see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights interpreted properly i.e. over half the rights in the declaration have been left out of the NZ bill of rights.
demand the right to inform the democratic majority in
Christchurch of the human rights truth which leads to a new
plan which is firmly, and being universal also spiritually,
based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
emphasizes individual rights (see ethical human rights,
development and globalization below).
This is in contrast to the present collectivist ideology which is based on elites (see below).
Also, the posts below, in my view, describes the gross deceit, low cunning and lies of the new-left and whatever your opinion the facts provided below, in my view, would be virtually impossible to dispute. In fact, I challenge anyone to dispute them!
I consider justice requires that those responsible, who I consider to be the leadership of the secular, liberal collectivists (see below) – a left-class whose political representatives I consider took over the NZ Labour Party in 1984, should be held to account for what has happened to Christchurch and New Zealand as a whole, once considered perhaps the most egalitarian countries in the world.
Unlike during the Cold War when ideologies were well-publicized i.e. America’s freedom versus Russia’s communism, the prevailing collectivist ideology is hidden with the bureaucrats, behind closed doors, driving public policy, irrespective of the government in power.
While the courts often emphasize individual rights at the level of public policy it is collectivist, in my view, because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is made compatible with IMF globalization policies (known as Rogernomics in New Zealand) which are elitist i.e. focus on the middleclass, professional sector and increasingly the social controllers.
IMF elitism involves discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property which strongly favors big business and the global market over the small entrepreneur and the domestic market, the major purpose, in my view, is the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination i.e. a huge decline in self-help and reaching full potential (see post script below).
While increasingly the more independent professionals, who can fall into the category of individual self-determination, and are being subjected to cultural cleansing.
But also I consider, within public policy, because of these IMF elitist policies you get elitist human rights i.e. human rights which favor the elites, which creates huge inequalities while relegating the individual to near worthlessness.
Major social problems have been created not just by the earthquakes but also, in my view, the collectivist ideology.
Homelessness according to government statistics is estimate to be between 5000 to 7000 including ‘living in a garage, in a caravan or on the couch’ as described in Tony Milne’s first-hand research in ‘Canterbury housing crisis a moral, economic, health, education and social failure’ (The Daily Blog, 24 July 2014, http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/24/canterbury-housing-crisis-a-moral-economic-health-education-and-social-failure/ ).
While rents are described as ‘sky high’ due to the
lack of accommodation (‘Christchurch rents still ‘sky
high’, Scoop NZ, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9614650/Christchurch-rents-still-sky-high
Many residents in ‘worry and despair’ are turning to medication (‘Worry, despair plague Christchurch resident’, Olivia Carville, 2 April 2013,http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/8495604/Worry-despair-plague-Christchurch-residents ).
.Domestic violence is said to have increased by fifty
percent post-quake. Annah Stretton
states: “ Calls to the Christchurch-based agency, Aviva (formerly Christchurch Women’s Refuge) increased by 50 percent following the Feb 2011 quake, and have remained at those same elevated levels ever since….” (‘RAW moves to Christchurch in aid of New Zealand women”, 19 May 2014,http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1405/S00378/raw-moves-to-christchurch-in-aid-of-nz-women.htm ).
A post-quake 50 per cent increase in referrals to the
region’s child and youth mental health services involving
‘stress, anger and depression’ and while ‘no new money
to channel into resources’ more freedom to utilize
existing resources (‘Child mental health referrals soar in
post-quake Canty’, New Zealand Doctor newsroom, 4 June,
There are also serious concerns about the exploitation of migrant workers (‘Christchurch rebuild migrants face debts, cramped accommodation,http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/3rd-degree/christchurch-rebuild-migrants-face-debts-cramped-accommodation-2014071618 ).
Christchurch Methodist Mission chief executive Mary Richardson says the Christchurch recovery is more about ‘the haves than have nots’.
She describes the ambitious central city with big convention centers, innovation precincts, five-star rated office blocks and up-market rental…. covered rugby stadiums and Olympic rowing courses which will cement Christchurch as the undisputed sporting capital of New Zealand.
Mary Richardson warns against growing inequality. She states: All these things could happen, but for larger Christchurch - the real Christchurch of the Kiwi battler - they might also be a failure. Post-quake, they might only have the perverse effect of locking in a greater level of social inequality. (some of these social problems are described in http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/9517254/Is-the-rebuild-worsening-poverty-in-Christchurch ).
While I consider the politicians are ideologically-captured, but which they cannot or will not talk about, it does not mean that all like what is happening.
The contract for building of the convention centre appears to have been signed (‘Christchurch convention centre developers announced’, Sarah-Jane Stylianou, 7 August 2014, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10359244/Christchurch-convention-centre-developers-announced ).
However, Christchurch City MPs, it seems, while agreeing that a sports stadium should be built did not all see it as the priority.
For example, Labour Port Hills MP Ruth Dyson said the stadium should wait while hundreds of people were still homeless and spending their life savings on rent as the housing crisis deepened.
Christchurch Central MP Nicky Wagner said an urgent replacement was not vital, but ''long-term, a city this size needs to have a place where people can celebrate rugby''.
Labour Wigram MP Megan Woods and list MP Clayton Cosgrove were more concerned roofs were put over the heads of residents rather than a stadium.
''People still don't have homes. For me, that is a priority,'' Woods said (‘Govt cool on new Stadium deal’, Glenn Conway, 28 January 2014,http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/9655848/Govt-cool-on-new-stadium-deal ).
In my view, while such survival rights are essential so are self-help rights (both are required in the ethical approach to human rights, see below).
For example, the above TV show demonstrated that also having a voice is very important to residents – it would be a very simple matter, involving minimal cost, to also ensure their voices (voices of their own - not the establishment speaking on their behalf or in control) were regularly heard in the mainstream media yet, in my view, fear of ‘unsafe’ truth emerging prevents this from happening.
So, in my view, one should be very wary of those political parties which while seemingly happy to deliver survival rights refuse to allow self-help rights. I consider they only seek a dependent population unable to help themselves.
.In my view, the focus should be on emphasizing an ethical ‘bottom-up’ development, small entrepreneurs, small/medium business, an entrepreneurial culture together with education in ethical human rights rather than the above grand plans for Christchurch , which are more grandiose, in my view, given the prevailing circumstances of the residents.
It could be argued that these grand plans will attract capital to the city but, in my view, it really represents an over-reliance on using the hard work and ideas of others rather than being able to make things happen for ourselves i.e. it is part of the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination.
I consider driving the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination are the secular, liberal collectivists both in New Zealand and the United Nations – it is a left-class, which discriminates on the grounds of social class, which I see as having taken over the NZ Labour Party in 1984 (see posts and discussion below) and, at the same time, in my personal experience, also within the bureaucracy creating an ‘old boys and girls network’.
That the NZ bill of rights was ‘by and for a left minority’, Geoffrey Palmer PM is described as the architect of the bill of rights and Helen Clark was Deputy PM, is virtually indisputable and can be seen in the voting patterns of MPs on the bill of rights 1990 (see internet, New Zealand Parliamentary Conscience Votes Also, those as described as being members of the Act Party actually describes their latest political party allegiance because the Act Party was not formed until 1996 ).
I consider human rights were hijacked. Seemingly an innocuous bill of rights with people often told it can be overruled by parliament (only once per year) but amongst each other MPs describe it as important constitutional law.
See my article, ‘Hope in Chch rebuild, ethical human rights despite all attempts to crush potential’,San Francisco Bay Indymedia, 4 May 2012,http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/04/18712908.php ). Also see my submission for the Quake Outcasts, ‘Greatness or Mediocrity? Global ethical human rights or Neoliberal absolutism’, Ireland Indymedia, 23 July 2014, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/103907 ).
[I consider human rights have also been hijacked at the UN where Helen Clark Heads the United Nations Development Program and is seen by many as the future UN Secretary-General].
I have also written a number of other articles on Christchurch, travelling there on three occasions since the first earthquake. I began promoting an ethical approach e.g. emphasizing a ‘bottom-up’ development, only two days after the first earthquake (see sources below).
Our council promotes an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization to replace the prevailing ideology in New Zealand i.e. neoliberalism which, as described above, I consider emphasizes the collective over the individual.
[I also see ethical human rights replacing the present globally dominant ideology, neoliberal absolutism, created at the UN on 10 December 2008 – in my view, the real cause of the GFC 2008 and which sees a Western ‘permanent decline’ together with what’s left of their individual freedoms. From my observation the global public has been kept almost entirely ignorant of neoliberal absolutism].
I have written extensively on the ethical approach which was first outlined in my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise if economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008). Also see my articles on indymedia: Auckland, San Francisco Bay, or Ireland. I now have another book contract with Lexington Books, well-known in academia, with the working title: ethical human rights, development, globalization to replace neoliberal absolutism.
I must say Christchurch holds a certain significance to me which I do not completely understand – my human rights began in Christchurch in early 1991.
That so few New Zealanders have heard about me is because I am virtually banned from the mainstream media, both domestic and global, despite my book being recommended on the UN website for two years. The present is my third book, my first at Auckland University, a dissertation but classed a Google book.
Yet I am essentially only promoting what I consider, and in six years no one has disputed it, to be a proper interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, in particular, the secular, liberal collectivists as well as human rights in New Zealand claim as their authority – see the title to the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.
So how can my exclusion be justified? Also, mine is a peaceful approach – and I have not appeared in court for violent crime.
Duty to the community is also in the Universal Declaration but excluded from the bill of rights which includes democratic rights but how does the later function if people are not informed of important truths in their vital interest. Doesn’t the democratic majority in Christchurch have a right to hear the human rights truth?
I consider I now have a very good grip on the human rights truth and what has taken place since 1984 and how it can be corrected, peacefully – but from my long experience the politicians will not or can not openly debate with me – but authenticity i.e. the courage of one’s convictions would require this, surely the residents of Christchurch should have such a debate take place.
Post Script. While in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I cannot see the individual right to self-determination reflected in the NZ bill of rights or any of the world’s constitutions. Also, with some rare exceptions e.g. possibly France, discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property is also permitted by these constitutions (see Google’s Constitute). Gross human rights manipulation is, in my view, taking place at the United Nations but my work (see sources above) provides an answer for this.
The following are posts and some discussion on the social networking sites which I consider describes the gross deceit, low cunning and lies of the new left:
10 September 2014
Our Politicians seem paralyzed by ideology in the face of enormous NZ tragedy. Christchurch residents 4 years after first earthquake are in the midst of this tragedy. In a former era people knew where they stood - it was publicized - either America's freedom or Russia's communism but since collapse of latter the prevailing ideology is almost completely hidden (and politicians will rarely ever tell you) and the people are left in virtual darkness hoping common-sense will prevail but ideology is not commonsense - its about power.
But once people see Discrimination as the cause of their declining lifestyles, huge inequality and many of their problems, most especially the child poverty and abuse, inability to improve oneself they will realize human rights need to be addressed and can find themselves home to a universal truth in part reflected in the Universal Declaration which when properly implemented is an ethical human rights and a more egalitarian world where all can, if they choose reach their full potential, but this time ensuring duties to the community.
I should add while in a past era there was a gross lack of duty in failing to ensure all had their core minimum human rights - it was called individualism - but little, if anything, in my view, could beat the secular, liberal collectivists, who also exercise no duty to the community, for virtual sheer destructiveness, both local and global, and Christchurch is just one local example but very important to us in NZ.
I see the secular, liberal collectivists [see below] as very largely a dependency group who link with like-dependency groups (they choose the easy life, just blaming others, while individual self-determination often involves a struggle within and without). The latter dependency groups are those who emphasize the collective over the individual and, in my view, they have become a massive burden on us all. But we are armed with a far better plan, global ethical human rights, consequently I consider they need us far more than we need them. So we can fight for our individual self-determination, including our universal beliefs, our inner creative force, while also exercising duties to the community.
9 September 2014
My response to Sarah O'Brien's post on Christchurch Earthquake Stories - A place to get is off your chest. March 2014 She wants New Zealand wide protests on what is happening in Christchurch.
Anthony Ravlich My truth firmly based on universal human rights truth. The Problem is one of Discrimination - what do you think happens to your lifestyle when that happens - I went to the Occupation protests, Aotea Square, on a number of occasions trying to tell them to stand for human rights as it is a fruitless task fighting the Corporations, Act Party and the 2 per cent. Some of the young were listening but those in control had a policy of 'shutting down' anyone that strayed off the anti-2% agenda.
Look I've been involved in human rights 24/7 since 1991 - my human rights started in Christchurch - I'm now contracted to write another book (Lexington Books, a major publish) - over half the human rights in the Universal Declaration has been left out of our bill of rights - forget the courts - where it all happens is behind closed doors out of the sight of the public - it is driven by the bureaucrats, in terms of public policy, irrespective of the government in power - at that level human rights are made compatible with IMF globalization i.e. Rogernomics, which is elitist i.e. strongly favors big business over small entrepreneurs. Therefore human rights are elitist and create huge inequalities. This is not a free domestic market! So what is the point of being anti-capitalism when discrimination on the grounds of intellectual property is used to strongly favors big business when, again driven by the bureaucrats NZ is culturally cleansed of individual self-determination i.e. no place for super-heros in NZ who take a lead and make things happen, who come up with new ideas to take society forward. Rather than the human rights emphasis on the individual it has become an emphasis on collectives i.e. elites get the human rights. WE HAVE GOT TO GET THE RULES RIGHT.
Behind it all, and this will be a very hard truth for NZers to accept, are the secular, liberal collectivists - a left-class which took over the Labour Party in 1984 - they discriminate on the grounds of social class and are virtually entirely class centric i.e. virtually only care about their class interests, power and image. Despite how they portray themselves (fine upstanding image - many our sacred cows e.g. Geoffrey Palmer, Helen Clark, Jane Kesley, John Minto, N. Hager - have they ever looked at themselves and the part their class plays in creating social mayhem - I think they would prefer death to facing that truth) they, in my experience, only use human rights to further their interests.
Look there is much more to be said but I now consider I have a very good grip on the truth and how things can be corrected i.e, the way home to the universality of human rights -put simply good law has been taken and manipulated in the interests of this class, driven by the bureaucrats - it has been concealed by a failure in duty of leaders to inform voters of many important truths but also a divide and rule - after Geoffrey Palmer (1991) and Roger Douglas (1990) got their knighthoods for their part in the bill of rights and Rogernomics (really IMF policies) - Douglas, Shirley and Prebble, [who were Ministers in the Labour Party], formed the Act Party [a far right political party] in 1996 – why? - in my strong view (because its also done at the UN with the division between the UN General Assembly and the IMF) it was to create a 'divide and rule' in NZ to hide what the left had done - human rights had been hijacked - the bill of rights was only passed by 36% of MPs (see New Zealand Parliamentary Conscience Votes on internet - see, for example, who passed a bill of rights which excluded childrens' rights - and now see what happened to the children).
I am meant to be writing a book so I better get back to it - but see the plan I consider the Universal Declaration would have delivered for Christchurch and still can (see at end of article, 'Comments on Helen's Clark's refusal to discuss global ethical human rights' - I took on Helen Clark, Head UNDP, on at the Maidment Threater, Auckland University. I really want an open public debate where they can't shut people down, All the best,
Jewelz Houghton [from Christchurch] wow
Jewelz Houghton National and Labour have had a plan for the last 20 years, Started showing it's ugly head in the late eighties is when I noticed great change and it was changes I didn't like. Wages were to be paid into your bank account was a major for me.
Jewelz Houghton I have never voted for either since and proud of that.
Jewelz Houghton Women in the labour workforce wages are pitiful ,violence against women and children are shocking. Women’s refuge saying stay in your abusive relationships cause if you leave there will be no help anywhere. Women need to be paid enough to rehouse themselves under Labour or National or things will just get worse as neither care ,People living in cars and tents. We need change.
Anthony Ravlich Jewelz - while there are too numerous important truths that need to be told people - not just re NZ but globally (see my work on Auckland Indymedia) - just one point I would like to make as it is sometimes observed that today’s NZ is very unequal e.g perhaps you could say about 50% are well off and about 50% really struggling. Affirmative action for women (1984) and Maori (late 1970s) began about 30 years ago - because our bill of rights permits social class discrimination and also discrimination regarding birth i.e. includes family lineage or whakapapa, it meant that affirmative action could be directed to those women and Maori higher on the social scale and this is the case today but it is really absurd giving affirmative action to the well off - its really meant for those who have suffered the terrible effects of discrimination e.g.poor health etc. and justice must be done.
I certainly do not know how these middleclass, professional women can live with themselves because many women at the bottom seem to be in the process of building perhaps one of NZ's next biggest growth industries - prostitution - I have little problem when its free choice but there must have been duress involved because there were so few job opportunities available (Christchurch seems to have changed that but from what you say its sounds as if many are being exploited) . And also, such affirmative action was justified to some extent because women would be more caring re children but I doubt whether children have been treated so badly in NZ's history.
But this just shows the almost unbelievable power of ideology (over men as well - they must wonder whether they are really men and the women whether they are really women!). See history when the collective is emphasized over the individual (see what it has done in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China) - so individuals are treated like numbers (see the concentration camps during the WW2. The courts often emphasize the individual but this is not the case re public policy.
There is just so much NZers need to be told about (hence part of the reason for the present book) but I have been blocked from the mainstream media virtually from the start even though my last book was recommended on the UN website (they may regret that now given what I am saying).
But if you have any thoughts on how people, I would say particularly the residents of Christchurch, could hear of my research findings I would appreciate hearing about it. Also I have three degrees from university -where I trained to be a statistical researcher in the social sciences but I decide to follow my heart and what I was best at i.e. human rights, which meant a life of poverty - but that was my choice and I wouldn't bother with human rights if it wasn't for real so since the outset of human rights I adopted a duty to inform the public of important human rights truths.
As I said above I'd really like an open public debate - I traveled to Christchurch on three occasions telling people of the ethical [emphasis on] 'bottom-up' approach to development ([word deleted] this has been supported by David Cunliffe [Labour Party leader] who circled the bottom-up approach and said he particularly liked that ). And I was warning re bill of rights but I was blocked by the press and star and CTV (although I did get it the public notices of the press).
That's the enormous power of ideology - they, men and women in leadership positions, must hate themselves. But you are dealing with leadership which has a lot to hide (e.g. the human rights omissions - ideology driven by bureaucrats etc etc not to mention a UN decision, 10 Dec 2008, to rebalance global power – [in my view] resulted in GFC 2008/9 with the West to go into 'permanent' decline taking what's left of their individual freedoms with them) so an open debate with me would prove very difficult for them.
Anyway, if you have any thoughts please let me know - and thanks for your comments, few ever comment on my work - yet I have received significant support for the ethical approach on the internet e.g. UN, US State Dept., Open democracy initiative of the While House - also in NZ three emails of support from Bryan Gould (NZ Order of Merit) as well as about 23 emails from Noam Chomsky ( ‘old- left’ who emphasizes the individual ) and many others see my linkedin, facebook, twitter, but none have been prepared to inform people in mainstream media - sorry I just go on and on - there is just so very much to say - when all the truth comes out - there will be many at the top who will find it very hard to look NZers in the eye, but accountability is a matter of justice, all the best.