portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality | human & civil rights

Discussing ethical human rights and change within Pakistan after reported Taliban violence

Discussing possible change within Pakistan, whether the State could adopt ethical human rights and the possibility of an Islamic political party being formed with ethical human rights as its non-political and spiritual base.
Discussing ethical human rights and change in Pakistan following reported Taliban deadly violence.


Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
www.hrc2001.org.nz


The following is a discussion on Facebook on 21 December 2014 between Munir Hussain, who works at law, studied at University of Sargoda, Pakistan, and myself on my recent post 'YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

'It became a discussion on change within Pakistan to enable it to become a developed nation.

It was recently reported that Munir Hussain's country was subject to a Taliban attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, which killed 141 people, including 132 children (see , Pakistan Taliban school attack kills 141, including 132 children..', The Guardian, 17 December, 2014,  http://www.theguardian.com/... /over-100-people-killed-in-paki... ).

The discussion below includes the United Nations Development Program's promotion of the rule of law and the UN's 'hidden collectivist agenda' and whether the State could adopt ethical human rights as well as the possibility of an Islamic political party, with ethical human rights as its ethical (non-political) and spiritual base, where change is not supported by the rule of law.

In my work I have been promoting ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace both America's neoliberalism and the UN's neoliberal absolutism. The ethical approach has been getting top support, including the Open Democracy initiative of the White House although only on the internet because, in my view, the global mainstream media is captured by the UN's 'hidden collectivist agenda' (see Anthony Ravlich Google+).
The discussion on Pakistan ensued after I posted the following on Google + and Facebook:

YOU HAVE A CHOICE. A leader I admire is American President Franklin Roosevelt. He wanted a second-bill of rights, economic, social and cultural rights, for America which involved social responsibility e.g. welfare rights [also freedom from exploitation].
This would have been in addition to the civil and political rights i.e. individual freedoms, in America's constitution.

However, America failed to adopt Roosevelt's second bill of rights but economic, social and cultural rights were later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
My hope is that America will revisit Roosevelt's second-bill of rights and interpret human rights ethically i.e. ensure for all, at least, the core minimum of both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights sufficient to give everyone a chance of earning higher levels of human rights if they wish.

And as I state elsewhere on this page (i.e. Anthony Ravlich Google +) it would turn America around and also take it forward - in my view, many other countries will follow with many benefits for humanity e.g. because it emphasizes bottom-up development e.g. small entrepreneurs rather than big business, it will majorly address the global mass discrimination against youth, and it will also address other negative effects of big business such as exploitation (replaced with creativity), increasing global warming, and the decimation of the world's wild life and environmental problems.

So whether you like America or not, and I have fought against neoliberalism which America promotes, from almost the beginning it was, by far, the major opponent of the creation of neoliberal absolutism at the UN on 10 December 2008. The latter involves a 'near absolute' control over people's lives.

In other words there is now something in operation that is far worse than neoliberalism. I suggest you read my work on the internet (also in ch5 of my book where I followed its creation from 2004 to 2008, see Anthony Ravlich Google+) because, in my experience, the global establishment will not tell you about it but its effects have been enormous e.g. a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power away from the West to other regions which means a 'permanent' decline in individual freedoms including individual self-determination to be replace by collective self-determination i.e. the collectivists e.g. repressive States, are now dominating the world.

I consider collective self-determination and the global cultural cleansing of individual self-determination has been driven by a left-descent based class, secular, liberal collectivists who took over from the post-second world war liberals (who emphasized individual freedoms rather than the collective e.g. status quo) at onset of neoliberalism in the late 1970s.

In some countries they are described as new labour but, in my view, they are almost entirely different from old labour which I supported. In fact, I regard the secular, liberal collectivists, although some 'sacred cows' within countries, as 'the enemy of human rights within' - they also dominate the UN and EU and I see them as seeking to preside over a One World Government. An East Asia community is also being formed. It will [in my view] be domination by a global collective with the individual reduced to being a dependent slave.

But rather than a One World Government I think the ethical approach which envisages a Great World, made up of Great States which ensure their citizens ethical human rights allowing individual self-determination e.g. individuals can seek greatness if they wish, will win out because the ethical approach is firmly based on the Universal Declaration i.e. universal, 'for all', and I think people will eventually choose it because, in my opinion, the world is presently on a self-destructive course and also I think people will choose it because 'history sides with sovereignty'. You have a choice.

Anthony Ravlich The ethical approach also includes duties to the domestic community as well as the global community. While it is considered the duty of the State is to first ensure all within the country have their ethical human rights i.e. the core minimum of all the rights in the Universal Declaration, there is also a duty to the global community e.g. helping other States unable to ensure ethical human rights for their people.

(PS. Below I made a number of grammatical corrections to Munir's comments and tried my best to clarify the odd unclear comment)

Munir Hussain Something I want to share is that if justice bird fly freely then freedom for all but [not] if justice bird's wings are crippled... ... ... When equality, justice, law, health care,. solutions to economic problems and daily earnings is provided for each and every individual ... .then a developed nation will flourish in the world

Anthony Ravlich Yes Munir I agree with you. It took me about two years after the support on the internet of the Open Democracy Initiative of the While House and the US State Department for the ethical approach to decide that America would be best to adopt the ethical approach and become that developed nation. I have a good feeling about America (and also Israel) particularly regarding the importance they use to attach to truth and perhaps to some extent still do.

And unlike the great majority of humanity (because it was virtually kept completely hidden) I saw the refusal of America, with only some support from the American camp, to adopt neoliberal absolutism [a collectivist ideology] which I regard as profoundly arrogant - collectivists (led by secular, liberal collectivists) wanting to create a world in their own image disregarding the lessons of history as expressed in the UDHR but also [because of] Roosevelt's second bill of rights which although not adopted by America it still could do.

But it is interesting that in the six years I have been promoting ethical human rights that the only academic who has had the courage to properly discuss it was a female Islamic associate Professor of Law from Pakistan. She agrees with the ethical approach and my guess is she doesn't like profound arrogance either. PS. While the ethical approach is secular it is firmly based on the Universal Declaration i.e. it's based on a universal truth, and consequently, in my view, is not profoundly arrogant.

Anthony Ravlich Also Munir if you haven't already read it my article 'Profound Arrogance at the UN', Scoop NZ, gives a spiritual dimension to profound arrogance.

Munir Hussain Serve humanity with valour but nation will progress if mind set is that protect our rights and curtailed other rights... ..According to our religion justice, equality, rule of law, brotherhood sacrifice tranquility peace respect other religions... ..are essential ingredients of our life and in all holy books Holy Quran, Bible, Torah, Zaboor and their lessons.

Munir Hussain if all nations joins hands for the welfare of humanity and take collective initiatives to eradicate caste creed sect... ... . for God sake we all are human beings all of us have right to live, we all have hearts and souls and think for a while ... . are [we] living like human beings or just living like a puppet of clay ??? please awake from the slumbers of sleep and... ... .stand for your rights and fulfill your obligations as a human beings and as well as a civilized citizen - its the dire NEED OF THE CURRENT ERA, LETS JOIN HANDS FOR JUSTICE PEACE AND FOR RULE OF LAW......

Anthony Ravlich Yes the rule of law is being promoted by the UN and nearly all State leadership seems to agree - but there is a major problem - the rule of law in a politically globalized world is based on international law which I have shown contains the UN's hidden collectivist agenda [see Anthony Ravlich Google+).

The UNDP [United Nations Development Program] has so far gone into about half the countries of the world promoting the rule of law, security, police and criminal justice system - so more courts I strongly suspect - why? The real reason in my view is not impunity or even equal rights with respect to women and it is not extreme poverty but rather the cultural cleansing of individual self-determination (crippling the justice bird in your terms - I mean if a country can't help itself then what? [See PS below]) - but I realize the immediacy of violence (especially the recent reported killing of children by the Taliban in Pakistan) - but as I see it there is nothing to stop a country from adopting the ethical approach I promote in domestic human rights law so violence is addressed without crippling the justice bird and the future of the country - is nil growth the answer!? . If Pakistan did that it would take a world lead and other countries would follow because as the UDHR stands at present the ethical approach would prove [virtually] unbeatable.

In my experience when dealing with the secular, liberal collectivists you are dealing with a class-centric group virtually only concerned with power and image and who just use human rights to further their class interests, in my view, to preside over a totalitarian One World Government - they are not intelligent - it is not intelligence to go against the lessons of history - and invariably the armies of intellectuals they employ no longer seek truth- but they do have a low cunning in their own interests.

Also given that ethical human rights, although secular, virtually equate with the Golden Rule espoused by the major religions that these religions also experience the secular collectivist ideological warfare that I experience - in my view, those with universal beliefs, in particular, need to promote the inclusion of ethical human rights, development and globalization in domestic and international human rights law. My thanks for the discussion.

[PS. UNDP's promotion of the rule of law etc is likely to result in the criminalization of enormous numbers of self-determining individuals e.g. entrepreneurs and those who need 'to go against the flow' in order to be creative].

Munir Hussain Well said but in our country leadership is not strong they want just to serve and protect their own families not a layman

Munir Hussain What happened in Peshawar everyone's eyes are filled with tears and hearts filled with grief but only in our country terrorism... ... we are trying to eradicate it individually as well as collectively and we salute our army who are defending our Motherland and we are hopeful if we stand unitedly for our rights and defeat our enemies with true zeal and zest - they are beasts who are shedding the blood of innocent people... .when we work for others Allah Almighty will give us our reward. You are welcome sir

The following also refers to the above post - 'YOU HAVE A CHOICE':

Munir Hussain Nice suggestions but when we stand unitedly for rights or where democracy, rule of law and mind set of people are clear... .education for all, social and economic problems are solved, everyone gets daily wages or earnings, and natural resources are protected... ..And from a human being to an ant every living organism wants food, air, water, shelter so democratic state needs to protect them... ... .but all of this depends on checks and balances and on the basis of equality is every step to be taken

Anthony Ravlich Yes, I agree the ethical approach I advocate needs to be a choice of the people so it requires letting people know about the ethical approach. Just a clarification regarding the justice bird. I think even if justice is fulfilled and the bird can fly freely that a duty still remains even though help is not required - because there may be an occasion when it is.

The American experience may illustrate this - for a very long time America was very successful just ensuring individual freedoms i.e. civil and political rights, for people because most people had jobs and could look after themselves but following the Great Depression and the Second-World War Roosevelt saw that there was a duty to provide economic, social and cultural rights because when devoid of opportunities people still needed to survive with dignity and with the State also providing employment.. However, this should not replace people from having the dignity of being able to help themselves otherwise people become dependent slaves of the status quo and societies go nowhere.

The latter, in my view, is what is happening in today's world - the deserving and gifted are being isolated and punished to remove the threat of higher functioning, thinking individuals and so reducing all to being the same. I consider this is a consequence of domination by collectivists who often do the same thing within their own groups by marginalizing the brightest.

In my view, the collectivist's idea of peace is to crush human potential and, of profound concern, also the inner spiritual being which, in my view, is also a creative force, in order to create dependent slaves. While I understand how people in Pakistan under considerable duress will be largely only concerned with the immediate e.g. dealing with the terrorist threat, I think eventually the 'distant' collectivist agenda of domestic and international system will need to be addressed because, in my experience, if things remain the same at the top often the same problems, also profound, will persist .in society.

Munir Hussain Every dawn brings a new day, hope, courage, true devotion will change our faith but first step we [must] take for ourselves

Munir Hussain When every human beings gets self respect without any discrimination and knows his rights and obligations to that nation... ... We will leave nothing in this world except our good deeds - live for others and love your motherland if it is protects you... ... ..When corruption, bribery, coercion, poverty, illiteracy is rooted out up from top to the end then a new system will flourish... ..In our motherland if we are protected then we are safe and sound

Anthony Ravlich Yes I think it is best if change comes from within the country. But I think it can be very difficult getting change without the support of the law. An idea: while the level of fear that exists in a country can determine what change is possible I wonder if change would be possible if an Islamic political party was formed based on 'secular' but universal, ethical core minimum human rights i.e. the ethical core minimum just means 'survival with dignity' as well as 'the added dignity of being able to help oneself' (there are also ethical duties). In fact, I can't see why any political party, religious or not, could not have such an ethical i.e. non-political [and spiritual], base.

And, also universal ethical human rights virtually equate with the Golden Rule and, in my experience, can connect with the eternal. I am aware that some cultures have even higher levels of fear than my own where it is possible to speak the truth but, in my experience, only in the margins of society where it can be still hugely difficult.

Munir Hussain absolutely, you are right that truth, democracy, educated state, and people with their eternal spirits high will one day surely achieve their goals and become a developed nation and engrave their country's name in the golden books of the world.

homepage: homepage: http://www.hrc2001.org.nz
phone: phone: (0064) (09) 940.9658
address: address: 10D/15 City Rd., Auckland City,