Equitalia e dintorni

We go through such situations all the time, and for me one such situation happened during and extended period between 2003 and 2006. I was getting a degree in a pretty time intensive major and had my one goal as attaining that degree come what may. As it turned out “what may” came and then some.

I ended up getting harassed for my race combined with other stuff, but mostly it was racial, as if I was of another race I would not have been harassed for that same thing. It was just after 9-11 and my race is basically biracial as my dad was from India and my mom is originally from England. I can easily be mistaken for Middle Eastern, even though India isn’t in the Middle East and obviously neither is England.

But you can’t usually sit down and have a rational discussion with fear and/ or crazy, and certain people within the degree program I was in turned out to be both to a degree. It seemed to emanate from one professor originally, but he pulled in a small group of ignorant posing as patriotic folk that the professor could basically tell any lie he wished to about me and they’d buy it. He recruited them when his efforts didn’t deter me from continuing in the program which was his goal, or so I thought at the time.

When their efforts also proved not up to snuff, the people harassing me would force others that wanted to just stay out for whatever reasons or thought it was just wrong, to participate. They would force them through harassment, dropping grades or the threat of flunking. To assuage them once they had them pinned down, they sort of handed out bonuses in the way of grades improving again certain conditional guarantees for struggling students, etc.

Things got really stressful in my little corner of the classrooms, as of course there was no reprieve for me. It was leave or face the heat. But, the only way I could afford college was through a scholarship I had that was for four years, required I go straight through without stopping and of course maintained a certain GPA. I couldn’t just transfer because the program had a unique four year curriculum and most other similar programs in other colleges had five year curriculums and those that were four year curriculums had their own unique design and focus.

Further, I could barely afford college with loans and the scholarship while having moved back in with my mother to cut costs, and being forced to quit my full time management position with a retail store. Moving out of state even if there were a similar program – which there wasn’t – just wouldn’t be feasible. The harassment gradually built so initially I felt I could handle it, let it roll off my back and basically tough it out. For me either way though that school and that degree program were it, I couldn’t afford to quit. I was going to sink or swim no halves.

In my senior year things took a strange turn when after telling a classmate that had participated in the harassment and sometimes planned it, but also pretended at times to sympathize with me, that I intended to complain and potentially sue. In any other circumstance I would have stayed away from him once he did that, but I needed to graduate and it was a small program and often parts of the required the assignments were given out to one or two people then disseminated from there throughout my graduating class. I used him like I could see he was using me. In other words I never got too close, though it still hurt when he would switch on me.

However, it turned out to be much deeper. After failing repeatedly to get me to change my mind he told me he worked for law enforcement in an undercover capacity and had been on the campus I was attending college for eight years. He said the work he had been involved in could be uncovered if I went public and pointed to others in the class that he said were also undercover law enforcement personnel. For some of the names he mentioned, it immediately made sense, however the amount of them seemed odd and excessive.

Thirteen years prior to coming to that university I had been involved in an unfortunately violent student protest against apartheid in 1990 on another college campus. So given 9-11 it made sense at least one or two were there watching me.

Actually I would have had no problem if it were just that, but the harassment made no sense. They could have simply denied my application and they didn’t. They instead chose to let me in and harass me using taxpayer dollars – someone who according to their own words was a dangerous threat.

Thank God I wasn’t some unbalanced person for the safety of the tens of thousands of students that can be on campus at any given time at that particular very large state school. Why would law enforcement do such a thing? Why would they engage in such reckless behavior? Nowadays with all the scandals it doesn’t always seem so farfetched. Even the secret service of the USA as it turns out have many corrupt and dirty employees within their ranks. But the time I am referring to was just after 9-11. We were counting on law enforcement for stability and safety. This is how they behaved in a place teeming with the innocent, with those needing to be protected?

Up until that point I treated that person, his name was Ed, as a person I liked, but used because it felt he was using me and wasn’t going to stop. I had no choice, so from that point on he was a dirty cop to boot, but I treated him the same – like a person that I would use to survive as he had done to me. I don’t like using people and still felt some friendship towards him, though there really was none, but in that situation to survive I had no choice. It still leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth, but life isn’t always made of sweet things.

What I learned also was that if and when you find yourself in a situation similar to the one I was in where you’re facing harassment and are just trying to survive to get on with it and get out, then you need to be always aware of people like Ed. There can be no real trust or friendship with a person like that. In fact, it’s safe to say they probably don’t really understand trust and have trust issues themselves. What other people would sign up for a career where you spend all your waking hours gaining people’s trust just to betray them at a moment’s notice and sail them right down the river?

These aren’t good people. Whether in a professional capacity like Ed, or a volunteer, they are breaking the law and most find some measure of gratification out of it. They are like purse snatchers, drug dealers and pimps doing what they do to break the law and trying hard not to be caught and will do anything not to be caught.

If what they were doing were righteous and good, they would not have to hide it. It would be simply outright, but it isn’t and the people where I was and I’m sure where others are in similar harassment circumstances are always hatching schemes that involve them leaving no evidence so as not to get caught. Career pimps like pimping, career drug dealers like dealing drugs, career muggers like mugging, serial rapists like raping, serial killers like killing, dirty cops like believing they have a license to do crime and people like those participating in harassment like doing what they do and creaming the benefits of breaking the law and not getting in trouble for it. That of course isn’t to say, people that have committed certain crimes outside of rape and serial murder can’t stop say pimping or selling drugs, etc and be perfectly normal people.

Whatever the case, for those in similar situations, people like that, like Ed, can never be your friends and anyone that participates, never be fooled into believing they are your true friend, for whether due to pressure or because they enjoy it, chances are they will turn like Ed. They have ulterior motives they just happen to be good at hiding. There are good and bad cops they don’t necessarily have to be police to be that way either and.

For example, my brother is a DJ in the underground electronica scene and knows many people in that scene. He was telling me about this one DJ he was talking with, also in the scene that has an image within the community of being all about peace and love and spreading such feelings. Let’s just say the DJ he was conversing with for the sake of anonymity has a promotion company called “Awake productions.”

He had people believing that this meant “awakening” to love, peace, bliss etc through the music he played and who he was. One day my brother was hanging out with that other DJ and that DJ told him people think the “Awake” symbolizes the ideas mentioned earlier, but that in fact they were wrong. He said, what the Awake really stands for was his feeing of superiority that he was more awake than other people and those that weren’t as awake as he, can be indiscriminately taken advantage of, ripped off, swindled etc. He covered it with the veil of peace, unity, love, bliss, etc, but in fact it was a way for him to aggressively take from people and use them as often as possible, with the idea that they weren’t as “awake” as he as his excuse. He felt if they couldn’t see what he really was, penetrate his veil, they deserved it. Those that could, he along with certain others that work with his company slandered and smeared. The “Awake” meant I’m looking to screw folks over.

So like that, there are people unfortunately that see themselves as simply having the right to hurt and take from other people for their own gain and nothing else. I don’t refer to healthy competition say in the workplace or academically etc. Not the normal stuff between normal healthy people, but people that basically if you really knew what they were, you would stay away and try to keep them far away. They are good at hustling and swindling, but deep down underneath it they are people that cannot entirely relate emotionally and empathize with others like you or I, they may be even a little autistic or something, not that autism makes a person bad of course. It’s as though they were a machine with a component missing.

It’s just what they are. They can be anyone and race, creed, nationality, religion, lifestyle have no bearing. But when you meet someone like them remember that, no matter how good they are. Once the mask has come down and you have been shown the face, you only have yourself to blame if you allow them in from that point on. They just aren’t good people no matter how well they fake it. They wouldn’t even know where to start.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.

Che da più di 60 anni la NATO abbia fatto “la parte del leone” in Italia, ed in particolare a Napoli, era cosa risaputa. D’altronde, il leone di S. Marco, che campeggia sul vessillo del Comando NATO per il Sud Europa (AFSOUTH), non è mai stato un semplice omaggio alla potenza dell’antica repubblica marinara di Venezia, ma un ben preciso segnale di dominio dell’Alleanza Atlantica sul Mediterraneo.

Basta aprire la home-page del sito web del Quartier generale di Bagnoli – denominato nel 2004 “Allied Joint Force Command Naples” – per apprendere che il JFC: “prepara, pianifica e conduce operazioni militari al fine di preservare la pace, la sicurezza e l’integrità territoriale degli stati-membri dell’Alleanza e la libertà dei mari e le linee economiche vitali lungo tutta l’area di responsabilità (AOR) del Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa (SACEUR) ed oltre”. (www.jfcnaples.nato.int )

E’ evidente che per i signori della NATO resta valido il vecchio motto latino “Si vis pacem para bellum”, mutuato da citazioni di Vegezio, Cornelio Nepote e, soprattutto, del Cicerone delle Filippiche (“Si pace frui volumus, bellum gerendum est”). Eppure sembra evidente la contraddizione, l’ossimoro organizzativo, di ben 22 nazioni che, sotto la guida d’un vertice obbligatoriamente statunitense, da sei decenni occupano militarmente una parte della città di Napoli, predisponendosi a combattere proprio per difendere la pace, la sicurezza e l’integrità territoriale…

Fatto sta che quest’immagine evidentemente non risultava abbastanza bellicosa se, fin dal summit di Praga del 2002, la NATO ha avviato una profonda ‘trasformazione’ e ‘riorganizzazione’ dell’Alleanza, finalizzata – per citare ancora il sito del JFC – ad “…adeguare la struttura militare alleata alle sfide operative di una guerra di coalizione, per fronteggiare le minacce emergenti nel nuovo millennio” (ivi)). Negli anni 2000, l’ambigua ed allusiva aggiunta di “ed oltre” all’indicazione dell’area di competenza del comando sud-europeo della NATO si è di fatto concretizzata in un notevole allargamento degli scenari d’intervento dell’Alleanza, con un molto maggiore attenzione alle c.d. “linee economiche vitali” dell’imperialismo capitalista che ad altre, più nobili, motivazioni. La sua struttura di comando, inoltre, è stata “reshaped” , cioè ridisegnata, per renderla “…più snella, flessibile e focalizzata sullo svolgimento di una più ampia gamma di missioni” (ivi).

Uscendo dal gergo militar-politichese, questo significa che anche al Comando NATO di Napoli è stato da tempo attribuito un compito molto più “operativo”, espressione eufemistica per indicare un chiaro ruolo di combattimento. Non a caso, la sezione del sito del JFC che illustra le fasi di questo processo di “transizione” s’intitola: “Let the Lion Roar”, che potremmo tradurre con: “Fa’/lascia ruggire il Leone”. E’ evidente l’auspicio di un risveglio del vecchio felino marciano, la cui spada sguainata sembrerebbe aver definitivamente vanificato la scritta “pax” sul librone sorretto dalla stessa zampa. A dimostrare che si tratta di un autentico ed irreversibile cambiamento, se restasse qualche dubbio, provvede l’articolo citato, che riferisce il pensiero dell’Amm. Bruce W. Clingan, nominato dallo scorso febbraio al vertice del Comando JFC di Napoli.

<<…”La guerra è un fatto politico. Noi non lo siamo” – ha detto Clingan – Con queste persuasive parole, i periodici sforzi del comandante per comunicare col personale civile e militare ed alle nazioni che contribuiscono a supportare la sistemazione di questa sede operativa tracciano il quadro entro cui attuare la transizione verso un comando di combattimento bellico. Per prima cosa dobbiamo padroneggiare l’arte di combattere una guerra – ha aggiunto. Clingan ha continuato a spiegare che le nazioni che hanno contribuito all’Alleanza devono essere preparate a dar seguito ad un conflitto “high end” (cioè: di alto livello) che, ad esempio, comprenda, senza limitarsi ad esse, le specialità  che vanno dal campo informatico ad altre operazioni, sia ‘cinetiche’ sia ‘non-cinetiche’…>> (http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/page193432.aspx).

Non mi pare che ci sia da interpretare tali affermazioni che, a parte gli ultimi riferimenti più tecnici, sono fin troppo esplicite. Il comandante Clingan ha ripetuto anche in seguito il concetto secondo il quale il carattere operativo della sede di Napoli (e tra poco di Lago Patria) deve diventare prevalente, caratterizzandola quindi in senso decisamente bellico più che organizzativo.

<<Egli ha riconosciuto che l’approccio collettivo per conseguire la sua priorità numero uno, quella di trasformare questo quartier generale in un comando di combattimento bellico, richiederà ‘scelte sagge’ e che valuta i contributi e le idee dei leader ad ogni livello all’interno del comando. “Ciò che conta è la leadership ed il coraggio – ha affermato. Spiegando che questa trasformazione non riguarda solo il trasferimento alla nuova sede di Lago Patria, Clingan ha detto che c’è una forte motivazione verso il cambiamento. “Le organizzazioni devono essere in grado di adattarsi alle circostanze, che cambiano rapidamente ed in profondità”, ha detto. “La NATO è su questa strada”…>>(ivi).

Ancora una volta viene sbandierata la nuova politica efficientista ed interventista dell’Alleanza Atlantica, motivandola ovviamente con l’esigenza di adeguarla alle mutate situazioni internazionali ed alle nuove “sfide alla sicurezza”. Una sede già importante come quella di Napoli, di conseguenza, ha già assunto un fondamentale peso strategico ed il suo Comandante non ha dubbi in proposito:

<<Una struttura di comando più snella, che capitalizza meglio le strutture di comando e controllo all’interno della struttura della forza NATO ed utilizza una tecnologia più aggiornata, è necessaria per consentire all’Alleanza di mantenere il suo livello di ambizione, per mantenere una robusta capacità di comando e controllo e dispiegabili capacità militari,  e per prevalere nelle operazioni in un ambiente dinamico e complesso, tra missioni concordate e capacità della NATO>>.

L’efficienza tecnologica ed organizzativa cui tende l’Alleanza Atlantica (e conseguentemente il  comando di Napoli), sostiene Clingan,  è uno strumento per dirigerne e controllarne sempre più la struttura, con l’esplicita finalità di assicurarne ‘il livello di ambizione’ proprio attraverso la sua operatività militare come “warfighting headquarters”.

Ecco, allora, che è proprio il suo Comandante per il sud-Europa che contribuisce a smascherare la versione un po’ addomesticata e pacioccona della NATO, presentata come baluardo posto a difesa della libertà dei suoi paesi-membri. Altro che pace, sicurezza ed integrità territoriale! Questi tre concetti, sebbene sventolati nel messaggio di apertura del sito del JFC, fanno oggettivamente a pugni con un’alleanza già aggressiva, minacciosa e multinazionale, che si propone senza troppi giri di parole di far diventare le sue sedi operative sempre più comandi per operazioni belliche.

A cancellare quest’evidente escalation imperialista non basteranno certamente le sottili strategie di “public relations” avviate dallo stesso JFC nei confronti dei residenti nell’area in cui la sua sede si trasferirà dalla fine del 2012 (vedi il mio precedente articolo: “Un preoccupante…neo-NATO”). Nello stesso sito web, infatti, si moltiplicano le notizie riguardanti iniziative di apertura verso i cittadini giuglianesi, in nome di un improbabile concetto di “buon vicinato” della comunità locale con questo ingombrante e pericoloso comando militare.

<< La sensibilizzazione pubblica del JFC di Napoli nei confronti delle scuole locali, degli ospedali e di altre istituzioni stabilite ha lo scopo di contribuire ad accrescere la comprensione tra la NATO e la comunità locale. Dal momento che il quartier-generale del JFC di Napoli diventa sempre più connesso con i suoi prossimi vicini, l’obiettivo è per i suoi cittadini quello di vedere il JFC come un contributo a stabilire sani e duraturi legami tra le forze armate e la comunità locale.>> ( http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/page372604617.aspx ).

Le visite di scolaresche alla base radar di Licola o al quartier-generale di Bagnoli, come pure i ‘cordiali’ incontri di funzionari NATO con sedicenti ‘rappresentanti’ della cittadinanza giuglianese presso la nuova sede di lago Patria, date queste premesse, assomigliano quindi alle visite delle famigliole al giardino zoologico, dove i “leoni” appaiono dei pacifici gattoni, ma solo dietro le sbarre…

Eppure, in occasione del vertice NATO di maggio 2012 – prudentemente spostato a Camp David dopo che nella blindata Chicago l’atmosfera era diventata incandescente… – il vecchio leone tornerà a lanciare i suoi minacciosi ruggiti. E lo farà soprattutto attraverso la suadente voce del Segretario di Stato USA, Hillary Clinton, che ha già anticipato il suo intervento.

<<Dopo le guerre in tre continenti – Jugoslavia, Afghanistan e Libia – e le operazioni navali permanenti nel Mar Mediterraneo e nel Mare Arabico, Clinton prevede che il vertice di Chicago permetterà di consolidare ed espandere il ruolo dell’unico blocco militare nel mondo come forza globale interventista: “A Chicago costruiremo questi partenariati, come promesso. Riconosceremo i contributi operativi, finanziari e politici dei nostri partner, in una serie di sforzi per difendere i nostri valori comuni nei Balcani, Afghanistan, Medio Oriente e Nord Africa”….>>   ( http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/a-chicago-il-vertice-per-consolidare-la-nato-globale/15079/)

Contro questa nuova sfida globale della NATO alla pace, alla sicurezza ed all’integrità territoriale, però, c’è chi non è disposto ad abbassare la testa ed a ripetere l’ennesimo “signorsì”. Ecco perché anche a Napoli ed a Giugliano – Lago Patria chi è per la pace, per il disarmo e la smilitarizzazione del territorio esprimerà la propria protesta e lancerà una campagna di controinformazione, di mobilitazione e di resistenza nonviolenta alla guerra.

Lasciamo pure che il leone della NATO ruggisca, ma non dimentichiamo mai la celeberrima favola di Fedro su quel leone che, dopo la caccia con altri animali più deboli, si aggiudicò arrogantemente tutta la preda (“totam praedam sola improbitas abstulit”). La morale della storia era e resta sempre la stessa: “Numquam est fidelis cum potente societas”, cioè: “Non c’è mai da fidarsi di un’alleanza con un potente”…!

© 2012 Ermete Ferraro (http://ermeteferraro.worpress.com )

Che da più di 60 anni la NATO abbia fatto “la parte del leone” in Italia, ed in particolare a Napoli, era cosa risaputa. D’altronde, il leone di S. Marco, che campeggia sul vessillo del Comando NATO per il Sud Europa (AFSOUTH), non è mai stato un semplice omaggio alla potenza dell’antica repubblica marinara di Venezia, ma un ben preciso segnale di dominio dell’Alleanza Atlantica sul Mediterraneo.

Basta aprire la home-page del sito web del Quartier generale di Bagnoli – denominato nel 2004 “Allied Joint Force Command Naples” – per apprendere che il JFC: “prepara, pianifica e conduce operazioni militari al fine di preservare la pace, la sicurezza e l’integrità territoriale degli stati-membri dell’Alleanza e la libertà dei mari e le linee economiche vitali lungo tutta l’area di responsabilità (AOR) del Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa (SACEUR) ed oltre”. (www.jfcnaples.nato.int )

E’ evidente che per i signori della NATO resta valido il vecchio motto latino “Si vis pacem para bellum”, mutuato da citazioni di Vegezio, Cornelio Nepote e, soprattutto, del Cicerone delle Filippiche (“Si pace frui volumus, bellum gerendum est”). Eppure sembra evidente la contraddizione, l’ossimoro organizzativo, di ben 22 nazioni che, sotto la guida d’un vertice obbligatoriamente statunitense, da sei decenni occupano militarmente una parte della città di Napoli, predisponendosi a combattere proprio per difendere la pace, la sicurezza e l’integrità territoriale…

Fatto sta che quest’immagine evidentemente non risultava abbastanza bellicosa se, fin dal summit di Praga del 2002, la NATO ha avviato una profonda ‘trasformazione’ e ‘riorganizzazione’ dell’Alleanza, finalizzata – per citare ancora il sito del JFC – ad “…adeguare la struttura militare alleata alle sfide operative di una guerra di coalizione, per fronteggiare le minacce emergenti nel nuovo millennio” (ivi)). Negli anni 2000, l’ambigua ed allusiva aggiunta di “ed oltre” all’indicazione dell’area di competenza del comando sud-europeo della NATO si è di fatto concretizzata in un notevole allargamento degli scenari d’intervento dell’Alleanza, con un molto maggiore attenzione alle c.d. “linee economiche vitali” dell’imperialismo capitalista che ad altre, più nobili, motivazioni. La sua struttura di comando, inoltre, è stata “reshaped” , cioè ridisegnata, per renderla “…più snella, flessibile e focalizzata sullo svolgimento di una più ampia gamma di missioni” (ivi).

Uscendo dal gergo militar-politichese, questo significa che anche al Comando NATO di Napoli è stato da tempo attribuito un compito molto più “operativo”, espressione eufemistica per indicare un chiaro ruolo di combattimento. Non a caso, la sezione del sito del JFC che illustra le fasi di questo processo di “transizione” s’intitola: “Let the Lion Roar”, che potremmo tradurre con: “Fa’/lascia ruggire il Leone”. E’ evidente l’auspicio di un risveglio del vecchio felino marciano, la cui spada sguainata sembrerebbe aver definitivamente vanificato la scritta “pax” sul librone sorretto dalla stessa zampa. A dimostrare che si tratta di un autentico ed irreversibile cambiamento, se restasse qualche dubbio, provvede l’articolo citato, che riferisce il pensiero dell’Amm. Bruce W. Clingan, nominato dallo scorso febbraio al vertice del Comando JFC di Napoli.

<<…”La guerra è un fatto politico. Noi non lo siamo” – ha detto Clingan – Con queste persuasive parole, i periodici sforzi del comandante per comunicare col personale civile e militare ed alle nazioni che contribuiscono a supportare la sistemazione di questa sede operativa tracciano il quadro entro cui attuare la transizione verso un comando di combattimento bellico. Per prima cosa dobbiamo padroneggiare l’arte di combattere una guerra – ha aggiunto. Clingan ha continuato a spiegare che le nazioni che hanno contribuito all’Alleanza devono essere preparate a dar seguito ad un conflitto “high end” (cioè: di alto livello) che, ad esempio, comprenda, senza limitarsi ad esse, le specialità  che vanno dal campo informatico ad altre operazioni, sia ‘cinetiche’ sia ‘non-cinetiche’…>> (http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/page193432.aspx).

Non mi pare che ci sia da interpretare tali affermazioni che, a parte gli ultimi riferimenti più tecnici, sono fin troppo esplicite. Il comandante Clingan ha ripetuto anche in seguito il concetto secondo il quale il carattere operativo della sede di Napoli (e tra poco di Lago Patria) deve diventare prevalente, caratterizzandola quindi in senso decisamente bellico più che organizzativo.

<<Egli ha riconosciuto che l’approccio collettivo per conseguire la sua priorità numero uno, quella di trasformare questo quartier generale in un comando di combattimento bellico, richiederà ‘scelte sagge’ e che valuta i contributi e le idee dei leader ad ogni livello all’interno del comando. “Ciò che conta è la leadership ed il coraggio – ha affermato. Spiegando che questa trasformazione non riguarda solo il trasferimento alla nuova sede di Lago Patria, Clingan ha detto che c’è una forte motivazione verso il cambiamento. “Le organizzazioni devono essere in grado di adattarsi alle circostanze, che cambiano rapidamente ed in profondità”, ha detto. “La NATO è su questa strada”…>>(ivi).

Ancora una volta viene sbandierata la nuova politica efficientista ed interventista dell’Alleanza Atlantica, motivandola ovviamente con l’esigenza di adeguarla alle mutate situazioni internazionali ed alle nuove “sfide alla sicurezza”. Una sede già importante come quella di Napoli, di conseguenza, ha già assunto un fondamentale peso strategico ed il suo Comandante non ha dubbi in proposito:

<<Una struttura di comando più snella, che capitalizza meglio le strutture di comando e controllo all’interno della struttura della forza NATO ed utilizza una tecnologia più aggiornata, è necessaria per consentire all’Alleanza di mantenere il suo livello di ambizione, per mantenere una robusta capacità di comando e controllo e dispiegabili capacità militari,  e per prevalere nelle operazioni in un ambiente dinamico e complesso, tra missioni concordate e capacità della NATO>>.

L’efficienza tecnologica ed organizzativa cui tende l’Alleanza Atlantica (e conseguentemente il  comando di Napoli), sostiene Clingan,  è uno strumento per dirigerne e controllarne sempre più la struttura, con l’esplicita finalità di assicurarne ‘il livello di ambizione’ proprio attraverso la sua operatività militare come “warfighting headquarters”.

Ecco, allora, che è proprio il suo Comandante per il sud-Europa che contribuisce a smascherare la versione un po’ addomesticata e pacioccona della NATO, presentata come baluardo posto a difesa della libertà dei suoi paesi-membri. Altro che pace, sicurezza ed integrità territoriale! Questi tre concetti, sebbene sventolati nel messaggio di apertura del sito del JFC, fanno oggettivamente a pugni con un’alleanza già aggressiva, minacciosa e multinazionale, che si propone senza troppi giri di parole di far diventare le sue sedi operative sempre più comandi per operazioni belliche.

A cancellare quest’evidente escalation imperialista non basteranno certamente le sottili strategie di “public relations” avviate dallo stesso JFC nei confronti dei residenti nell’area in cui la sua sede si trasferirà dalla fine del 2012 (vedi il mio precedente articolo: “Un preoccupante…neo-NATO”). Nello stesso sito web, infatti, si moltiplicano le notizie riguardanti iniziative di apertura verso i cittadini giuglianesi, in nome di un improbabile concetto di “buon vicinato” della comunità locale con questo ingombrante e pericoloso comando militare.

<< La sensibilizzazione pubblica del JFC di Napoli nei confronti delle scuole locali, degli ospedali e di altre istituzioni stabilite ha lo scopo di contribuire ad accrescere la comprensione tra la NATO e la comunità locale. Dal momento che il quartier-generale del JFC di Napoli diventa sempre più connesso con i suoi prossimi vicini, l’obiettivo è per i suoi cittadini quello di vedere il JFC come un contributo a stabilire sani e duraturi legami tra le forze armate e la comunità locale.>> ( http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int/page372604617.aspx ).

Le visite di scolaresche alla base radar di Licola o al quartier-generale di Bagnoli, come pure i ‘cordiali’ incontri di funzionari NATO con sedicenti ‘rappresentanti’ della cittadinanza giuglianese presso la nuova sede di lago Patria, date queste premesse, assomigliano quindi alle visite delle famigliole al giardino zoologico, dove i “leoni” appaiono dei pacifici gattoni, ma solo dietro le sbarre…

Eppure, in occasione del vertice NATO di maggio 2012 – prudentemente spostato a Camp David dopo che nella blindata Chicago l’atmosfera era diventata incandescente… – il vecchio leone tornerà a lanciare i suoi minacciosi ruggiti. E lo farà soprattutto attraverso la suadente voce del Segretario di Stato USA, Hillary Clinton, che ha già anticipato il suo intervento.

<<Dopo le guerre in tre continenti – Jugoslavia, Afghanistan e Libia – e le operazioni navali permanenti nel Mar Mediterraneo e nel Mare Arabico, Clinton prevede che il vertice di Chicago permetterà di consolidare ed espandere il ruolo dell’unico blocco militare nel mondo come forza globale interventista: “A Chicago costruiremo questi partenariati, come promesso. Riconosceremo i contributi operativi, finanziari e politici dei nostri partner, in una serie di sforzi per difendere i nostri valori comuni nei Balcani, Afghanistan, Medio Oriente e Nord Africa”….>>   ( http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/a-chicago-il-vertice-per-consolidare-la-nato-globale/15079/)

Contro questa nuova sfida globale della NATO alla pace, alla sicurezza ed all’integrità territoriale, però, c’è chi non è disposto ad abbassare la testa ed a ripetere l’ennesimo “signorsì”. Ecco perché anche a Napoli ed a Giugliano – Lago Patria chi è per la pace, per il disarmo e la smilitarizzazione del territorio esprimerà la propria protesta e lancerà una campagna di controinformazione, di mobilitazione e di resistenza nonviolenta alla guerra.

Lasciamo pure che il leone della NATO ruggisca, ma non dimentichiamo mai la celeberrima favola di Fedro su quel leone che, dopo la caccia con altri animali più deboli, si aggiudicò arrogantemente tutta la preda (“totam praedam sola improbitas abstulit”). La morale della storia era e resta sempre la stessa: “Numquam est fidelis cum potente societas”, cioè: “Non c’è mai da fidarsi di un’alleanza con un potente”…!

© 2012 Ermete Ferraro (http://ermeteferraro.worpress.com )

IL LATO CATTIVO – Aggiornamento del blog

“La contraddizione fra proletariato e capitale è ineluttabile”

R. – «Théorie Communiste»

Che si scelga l’uno o l’altro dei due corni del dilemma, l’alternativa tra ineluttabilità e non-ineluttabilità (possibilità) del comunismo è priva di senso. L’alternativa ed entrambi i suoi termini, presi separatamente, si basano su una sola ed unica confusione tra il processo di caducità del modo di produzione capitalistico e il suo superamento. Una volta acquisita questa confusione, l’alternativa si impone: per gli uni la confusione è totale e rivendicata: il comunismo è ineluttabile; per gli altri la confusione è altrettanto totale, ma il superamento potrebbe avere luogo soltanto essendo qualcosa di più che un’oggettività, poiché – lo sanno tutti – la rivoluzione è attività, e dunque soggettività: il comunismo diventa allora un possibile. Possibilità e ineluttabilità del comunismo non esistono che come termini di un’alternativa; il problema è il fondamento di questa alternativa.

http://illatocattivo.blogspot.it/2012/05/la-contraddizione-fra-proletariato-e.html

Anthony Ravlich

Chairperson

Human Rights Council (New Zealand)

10D/15 City Rd.

Auckland City.

Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658

[Accountability: the following is our Submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A representative from the NZ Human Rights Commission who was attending New Zealand’s human rights review asked if we had any additional information to add so this article was sent. NZ’s review was completed on 7 May 2012. Also Noam Chomsky, who regularly provides oversight of our articles states he will be giving it a ‘careful reading’ (personal email, 10 May 2012)].

A private member’s amendment bill proposes that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, passed by a conscience vote of only 36 per cent of MPs in August 1990, and ‘by and for’ a left-minority, now be entrenched by requiring 75 per cent of MPs to agree to any change.

The private member’s bill seeking entrenchment of the status quo is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill, co-authored by David Clendon and Keith Locke (now retired) of the Green Party, will make it far harder to include the many human rights omissions (New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill, Green Party, http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/new-zealand-bill-rights-amendment-bill ).

Amnesty International (America) describes all the omissions: “The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) did not have protected legal status, which allowed for the possible enactment of legislation contrary to its provisions. The BORA did not incorporate all the rights provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Annual Report: New Zealand 2010, Amnesty International (United States), http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-new-zealand-201… )”. Also, some omitted human rights are recommended for inclusion by the NZ Human Rights Commission (see below).

That the bill of rights was ‘by and for’ a left-minority is apparent. The CommoNZ Parliamentary Database of ‘conscience votes’ shows that 36 per cent of parliament passed the Bill of Rights, 30.1 per cent were against and 33 per cent were absent.

I came across the above statistics by accident. In 21 years of promoting human rights, also reading the academic literature, I have never seen these figures before. I sent them to nearly every MP and received 13 responses with no one challenging them. (A full list of the voting patterns of MPs on the Bill of Rights, database updated on July 30, 2009, can be found on the following link http://commonz.wotfun.com , just enter the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and press search).

Of the 36 per cent of parliament who voted for the bill of rights all came from the Labour Government (62.3 per cent of its MPs voted in favor) as well as two Act Party members who were former Ministers in the Labour Government (also Roger Douglas, who provided the neo liberal economic dimension, Rogernomics, voted for the bill of rights).

My work shows that the major social problems are directly related to the human rights omissions in the bill of rights which is greatly underestimated (see section below on ‘A powerful not a weak bill of rights’, also submission to UN, ‘New Zealanders must ‘speak out’ about omitted rights or be reduced to ‘numbers’’, http://www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/new-zealanders-must-speak-out-about-omitted-rights-or-be-reduced-numbers).

Typically, in my view, neo liberal States use mass neglect, by human rights omissions, rather than the direct violence of authoritarian regimes to instill fear in the population and ensure compliance.

The huge social problems include many children abused and neglected, those at the bottom of the social scale ‘crushed and isolated’, a mass exodus overseas including many of the ‘best and brightest’ and many other disturbing social statistics – a number worse than other countries (see ‘New Zealand social statistics – too toxic for the young’, http://www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/nz-social-statistics-too-toxic-young, ).

In my view, there would have been far more ‘bottom-up challenges’ to ‘top-down control’, perhaps even a national uprising, if the country had not been so successfully purged of its ‘best and brightest’ while ‘isolating and crushing’ the potential of those of the latter who remained in the country (see section on crushing human potential, below).

The ‘best and brightest’ would have been the most articulate in ‘speaking out’, have the intellectual capacity to stand for or support a better plan such as human rights, or organize a bottom-up challenge.

The country was ‘dumbed down’, in my view, to ensure no bottom-up challenge which might slow the hegemonic ambitions of a ‘bi-cultural’ bureaucratic elite supported by like-minded bureaucratic elites around the world.

The bill of rights permitted social class discrimination which allowed the neo liberal emphasis on the human rights and development of the middle class, professional sector and Corporations (promising ‘trickle down’ which did not occur) rather than addressing the most serious violations, often found at the bottom of the social scale, which human rights is meant to do.

This neo liberal middle class focus, following the very discriminatory human rights agenda with its parallel economic dimension, Rogernomics, meant that those at the bottom were subjected to extreme top-down containment rather than being helped to having their human rights violations addressed.

Such neo liberalism requires mass conformity to execute – anyone who raises their head above the parapet is quickly isolated.

In addition to much production being done in China and India, meaning few opportunities for small entrepreneurs in New Zealand, the effect has been to purge the country of its the ‘tall poppies’, crush individual potential and consequently any possibility of ‘bottom-up’ challenges to ‘top-down’ control. While the mass exodus from the country continues (see section on crushing human potential below).

Such extreme top-down control required by neo liberalism also seems compatible with Maori ‘tribalism’, based on whakapapa, and the Green Party Charter based on ‘limited resources’ and redistribution of the wealth (see The Green Charter, http://www.greens.org.nz/charter) (see section on ethical human rights)..

Those that bother to give the bill of rights any thought are usually told how weak it is legally and their focus is directed to its effectiveness in the courts – only very rarely, apart from the NZ Human Rights Commission (see above) and Amnesty International (US, (Annual Report: New Zealand 2010, Amnesty International (United States), http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-new-zealand-201… ). see below), will anyone in the establishment, including MPs, talk about the omissions.

But rather than in the courts it is its cultural impact which, in my view, has had such a devastating effect on the country (see section on cultural impact below).

The amendment bill appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the outcome of the Key government’s constitutional review, including whether the Treaty of Waitangi should be the foundation of a New Zealand Constitution as well as bill of rights matters, due for completion in mid-2014.

The Amendment bill wants to retain the status quo but the review could decide to include children’s rights, equal rights and possibly include non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin as recommended by the NZ Human Rights Commission (Human Rights in New Zealand 2010, New Zealand Human Rights Commission, http://www.hrc.co.nz/human-rights-environment/human-rights-in-new-zealand-2010/ )

My research, although not in depth, shows that ‘human rights’ in English Law enacted in New Zealand predated the Treaty of Waitangi by 23 days so, historically, human rights rather the treaty should be the foundation of a future New Zealand Constitution which is presently the subject of a constitutional review due to be completed mid-2014 (see section on the Treaty of Waitangi).

Also, Asian discrimination now seems to be emerging as a social problem and the Human Rights Commission in the Race Relations Report 2012 states it wants to ‘actively focus on inclusion in all aspects of New Zealand life as a means to break down discrimination against Asian New Zealanders’.

But the affirmative action for Asians, generally acknowledges as high achievers, recommended by Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, I would see as more of an insult than a help (see section on Asian discrimination).

Entrenchment was not cited as one of the ‘key changes’ proposed by the Green Party member’s amendment bill but was seen as necessary. The amendment bill states: “Because the Bill of Rights is an Act of fundamental constitutional importance, this Bill will also entrench its provisions so that these cannot be amended or repealed by a simple majority of the House”.

Rather the key changes proposed involve ensuring members are ‘better informed about rights issues’ and to provide a new remedy of a declaration of inconsistency which the courts can make for legislation ‘that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights’.

As support for the latter, the amendment bill cites the recommendations of the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee which stated that New Zealand ‘should strengthen the current mechanisms to ensure compatibility of domestic law with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’.

However, what the amendment bill omits – which surely must have been deliberate (see below) -is that since 1993 the UN committee has asked New Zealand on three occasions to include the human rights which have been omitted from the covenant, but which successive governments have ignored. The recommendations are as follows:

1) 1995: “The Committee recommends that the State party take appropriate measures to incorporate all the provisions of the Covenant into domestic law” (CCPR/C/79/Add.47; A/50/40, paras. 166-191, 3 October 1995);

2) 2002: “The State party should take appropriate measures to implement all the Covenant rights in domestic law” (CCPR/CO/75/NZL, 7 August 2002);

3) 2010: “The Committee reiterates its concern that the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) does not reflect all Covenant rights………..The State party should enact legislation giving full effect to all Covenant rights” (CCPR/C/SR.2711 and 2712, 25 March 2010 )

[Also, see section on human rights omissions below]

As stated above if the amendment bill’s proposed entrenchment of the present bill of rights succeeds it will seriously impede human rights development by making it far harder to include the many human rights omissions.

As stated above the NZ Human Rights Commission indicates that the exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin (social status at birth) is of concern. The latter allows social class discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic status (wealth).

These forms of discrimination permitted the neoliberal focus on the human rights and development of the middle class, professional, Corporate sector (with a promise of ‘trickle down’ which it is generally acknowledged failed) whereas human rights is meant to address those suffering the worst violations (which is the ethical approach, see below).

The amendment bill does have an entrenchment alternative to 75 per cent  of parliament being required to change the bill of rights and that is if it ‘has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of electors in both the general and Maori electoral districts’.

However, apart from whether this is democratic or not, it is hard to see how this could happen unless the people, both Pakeha and Maori, received a prolonged period of human rights education however it would be remarkable if this was to occur, because, as stated elsewhere, section 5(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 which requires human rights education has never been funded according to the NZ Human Rights Commission.

Crushing Human Potential

That the ‘best and brightest’ continue to leave New Zealand in large numbers are indicated by the most recent statistics (including ‘brains’ and brawn’):

“Some 5,000 departures in the month of March left a net loss across the Tasman of 3,928 last month, according to Statistics New Zealand.

“That took the annual net loss to a record 39,456, with 53,237 departures in the year ended March31.

“That’s continued a trend of record annual outflows to Australia since November 2011, the department said” (‘New Zealand exodus to Australia continues in March’, Paul McBeth, BusinessDesk, April 24, 2012).

Also, I strongly suspect that the considerable increase in the use of pharmaceuticals is to help people cope with the suppression of their potential i.e. to remain in a state of dependency and ‘arrested development’ unable to help themselves.

A recent news report stated: “Tough economic times may be hitting the government in the pocket in many ways – but not when it comes to spending on prescription drugs.

Health Minister Tony Ryall has revealed spending on pharmaceuticals increased by $180 million over the past three years.

Last year, three million people were prescribed more than 40 million subsidized treatments, a 16 per cent increase from 2008 (‘Govt spending more on pharmaceuticals’, Cassandra Mason and Newstalk ZB, April 13, 2012).

That the human rights omissions have been so very effective in purging New Zealand of its ‘tall poppies’ and crushing the potential of those who remained (described below) with many ending up in mental hospitals, on the streets and often to be the parents of children subjected to high levels of abuse and neglect that New Zealanders it is now rated the most the peaceful country in the world.

.

This is indicated by the “Global Peace Index’ which ranks New Zealand in 2010 as the world’s most peaceful nation, for the second year running (Vision of Humanity, World News, 8 June 2010, http://www.visionofhumanity.org/news/nz-is-worlds-most-peaceful-nation-again/ ).

That only a small number of discontented would have been left in the country who were articulate and politically aware enough to engage in any ‘bottom-up’ challenge can be seen from the survey findings of Kea New Zealand ‘Every Kiwi Counts 2011’. According to the on-line survey of over 15,000 New Zealanders living offshore:

·        Compared to on-shore New Zealanders in the 2006 Census, the overseas Kiwis surveyed are about seven times as likely (34% v 5%) to have a post-graduate qualification and almost three times as likely (31% v 11%) to have a Bachelor’s degree;

·        Only 1% of overseas Kiwis say they have no formal qualifications, compared with nearly one quarter (24%) of New Zealand residents who say the same.

Similarly, the following confirm the above and show how extreme New Zealand was in purging its ‘tall poppies’:

An OECD report in 2005, ‘Counting Immigrants and Expatriates in OECD Countries: A New Perspective’, stated that both New Zealand and Ireland had the highest percentage, 24.2 per cent, of its highly skilled (i.e. a tertiary education) leaving their countries

.A World Bank study in February 2010, ‘The Economic Consequences of the Brain Drain of the Best and Brightest’ in February 2010 described New Zealand, one of five countries chosen for the study, as ‘the OECD country with the highest tertiary brain drain rate’

New Zealand Ministry of Education research, entitled ‘Beyond Tertiary Study’, states: New Zealand had lost 35 percent of its PhD students overseas. It stated: “The results showed that for those domestic students who last studied in 2003 and achieved their doctorate, around 65 percent were employed in New Zealand four years after they last studied. This was lower than for students who last studied at masters (72 percent) and bachelors (75 percent) level” (Post doc, ‘Do People with doctoral degrees get jobs in New Zealand post study’, Dr Warren Smart, Ministry of Education, September 2011, www.educationcounts.govt.nz )

.The ‘big picture’ of the purging of home-grown intellectual talent can be seen on the map ‘Migration and the Brain Drain Phenomenon’ shows that New Zealand falls into the category ‘more than 20%’ share of a countries nationals with a university education who live in (another) OECD country’, http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3343,en_2649_33935_39269032_1_1_1_1,00.html

The above ‘big picture’ indicates that the ‘brain drain’ does not just apply to small countries like New Zealand, which sometimes it is claimed, but also large countries in Africa, as well as Iran, the Philippines, Madagascar, as well as Great Britain, including Ireland

.

Also, that the ‘brain exchange’ i.e. incoming highly skilled immigrants, rather than a ‘brain drain’ argument of Treasury researchers is disingenuous because recent immigrants take a long time to adjust to a new country while those born here have developed strong attachments, long experience etc. so are more likely to fight for the country (see discrimination towards Asians below).

In addition, it is frequently said that New Zealanders (i.e. ‘brains and brawn’) leave for higher salaries overseas but this may well not apply to the ‘best and brightest’. A World Bank’s study which includes New Zealand, ‘The Microeconomic Determinants of Emigration and return Migration of the ‘Best and Brightest’ – Evidence from the Pacific’ concluded:

‘…..we find that narrow measures of income gains or economic incentives for migrating play a very minor role in determining which of the highly skill migrate and return……the current migrants in our survey offer suggestions more closely linked to improving the career opportunities rather than to simply raising salaries..” (The World Bank Development Research Group, John Gibson, Waikato University, and David McKenzie, World bank, June 2009, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/06/17/000158349_20090617101215/Rendered/INDEX/WPS4965.txt ).

Consequently, it was positive to hear the recent remarks of David Shearer, the new NZ Labour Party leader: “The brain drain to Australia is “a real challenge” to which governments in New Zealand must respond, ….Shearer has told a trans-Tasman forum in Sydney (‘Brain drain to Australia worries NZ’, AAP April 13, 2012).

A powerful not a weak bill of rights.

The effect of the bill of rights, and therefore its omissions, are greatly underrated, in my view, because the public, at least the small number who are aware of the subject, are led to believe it’s effectiveness only relates to its ability to protect fundamental freedoms in the courts and are usually told how weak the bill of rights is legally.

But in a human rights world, and because New Zealand has always upheld human rights, the bill of rights, which all public bodies must abide by (see below), has considerable moral force.

Rather than its impact in the courts it is its cultural impact on society where the bill of rights, because its many omissions has resulted in the gross neglect of many, has had severe social consequences as evidenced by the social statistics (see ‘New Zealand social statistics – too toxic for the young’, cited above).

The bill of rights effectiveness in the courts is described as a side-issue – rather it was really concerned to make a major cultural impact, gross neglect of many due to the omissions, through parliament, the bureaucracy, universities, other public bodies charged with its implementation, increasingly extending to the private sector. It involves the constant undermining of individual worth and freedoms.

Rather than being a ‘weak’ document the following shows how powerful it actually is:

1) Under Section 7 of the bill of rights the Attorney General is required ‘to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights’.

While parliament is sovereign and the bill of rights is able to be trumped by ordinary statute in twenty years only 19 bills have been passed by parliament against the advice of the Attorney General.

Simon Power told the UN Human Rights Committee in 2010: “Thus far, 49 bills had been found by the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with the Act. Of those bills 19 had been enacted as introduced, 9 bills had been enacted after being amended during the legislative process to address the Attorney-General’s concerns, and 21 had not been enacted” 16 March 2010?.

While the above Green member’s amendment bill confirms this: “A recent analysis suggested that since 1991 more than 20 Bills have been passed without identified inconsistencies being removed”.

2) Sir Ivor Richardson, President of Court of Appeal from 1996-2002, when discussing the cultural effects of the bill of rights said that ‘litigation plays an important lesser part in assuring compliance with basic legal standards..’and ‘the Bill of Rights has had a major but less publicized impact on the regular functioning of government…’ and also ‘…which cannot be overemphasized, is that all governmental agencies, including local government agencies, are required to build Bill of Rights standards into decision-making at all levels. So that wider impact affects day to day administration and policy development within government”

Furthermore, he describes how bills of rights have changed from acting as a restraint on the powers of the State to protect individual freedoms to being used to capture the private sector.

He states: “Historically bills of rights were viewed as restraints on the powers of the state. But developments in the last 20 to 30 years have required reconsideration of that narrow focus. Erosion of the welfare state, the world wide trend towards privatizing and contracting out various activities, the expanding strength of multi-nationals and national corporations far beyond state boundaries, mobility of capital, and investment flows in the electronic age — they have changed the landscape and led to an increased focus on the application of the Bill of Rights to private entities (2004, 10, Canterbury Law Review 259, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/CanterLawRw/2004/10.html )

3) Elections New Zealand states: “While the Bill of Rights Act 1990 may provide weaker constitutional protection than Palmer wanted, its impact has been significant on the behaviour of both governments and the courts.  Its power has come from its persuasive force. Governments want to avoid passing new bills that conflict with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.  As a result, the provisions of the Bill of Rights are taken into account when policy is drafted.  Its impact therefore is strong, but largely invisible to the public.  Similarly, the courts have been receptive to interpreting new legislation in a way that complements, rather than conflicts with, the Bill of Rights” (Elections New Zealand, Civil and Political Rights in New Zealand, http://www.elections.org.nz/maori/ntkm-democracy/rights-in-nz.html.).

4) Also, Geoffrey Palmer, the architect of the bill of rights, stated that ‘a Bill of Rights provides a set of navigation lights for the whole process of Government to observe’ (15 Years of the NZ Bill of Rights: Time to celebrate, Time to Reflect, Time to Work., Petra Butler, p2, (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40709134/RS%C2%A0OF%C2%A0THE%C2%A0NZ%C2%A0BILL-OF-RIGHTS-IME%C2%A0TO%C2%A0CELEBRATE).

While in July 2002, Mr Caughley, New Zealand’s representative, told the UN Human Rights Committee, who were reviewing New Zealand’s human rights record: “The Bill of Rights is a ‘road map’ for public agencies: “All agencies of the Government were required to act in accordance with the BORA”(Mr Caughley (New Zealand), Human Rights Committee, seventy-fifth session, summary record of the First part (Public) of the 2016th meeting, 10 July 2002).

As stated above s7 of the bill of rights requires the Attorney-General to report to parliament on inconsistencies but the human rights omissions would be overlooked. And this may seriously affect the culture of parliament.

The former Minister of Justice, Simon Power, who also said that ‘I have always told myself I would leave politics before the idealism left me’, stated in his valedictory speech on 5 October 2011: “There are many debates that Parliament does not want to have…: abortion, adoption law, children’s rights, and sexual violence issues. I don’t share this timid view” And he added: “The truth is, if we don’t have those debates here, where will we have them?” (‘Ethical human rights likely to be many children’s and freedom’s last hope in New Zealand’, kiwi.kids.org.nz, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/26/18708196.php )

When questioned by the UN Committee about the omissions New Zealand sometimes argues that the human rights omissions are covered by other legislation. Former Minister of Justice, Simon Power, told the UN Human Rights Committee: “Where certain Covenant rights had not been directly included in the Bill of Rights Act, they had been given effect by other legislation and the common law” (Summary record, 2696th meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/NZL/Q/5/ Add.1, 15 March, 2010).

However, that ordinary law is far less effective than constitutional law was indicated when Ireland’s human rights record was discussed at the United Nations.

Last October the Irish Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, when answering questions about Ireland’s human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva recognized that ordinary law proved insufficient to protect children’s rights.

Mr Shatter reaffirmed an “absolute commitment” to hold a referendum next year to enshrine children’s rights in the constitution. “We accept that the HSE [Health Service Executive] has failed to deliver adequately their statutory obligation to ensure children’s protection,” he said, adding that a proposed single new agency would improve the situation (‘State questioned on human rights’, Ruadhan MacCormack, in Geneva, Michelle Stein, October 6, 2011, (see description of the HSE at the end of the article), http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1006/breaking11.html ).

Human rights the foundation of a future Constitution.

As stated above the purpose of the amendment bill may well have been to pre-empt the outcome of the Key government’s constitutional review (due to be completed in mid-2014) which includes whether the Treaty of Waitangi should be the foundation of a future New Zealand Constitution.

The goodwill shown by New Zealanders to Maori seems quite apparent but I am strongly of the view that this can be taken too far.

Accommodating ‘tribal’ Maori definitely should not extend to compromising one’s human rights beliefs which, in my view, would be the case if the treaty becomes the foundation of a future New Zealand Constitution.

If the Treaty of Waitangi becomes the foundation of a future New Zealand Constitution it would, in my view, entail an utterly fraudulent abuse of human rights and would be a disaster for New Zealand.

My work already shows that the human rights omissions were designed to be compatible with a collectivism which denies many individuals their core minimum human rights in the interest of elites.

This ‘tribalism’ is in direct opposition to the collective human family envisaged by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where the emphasis is on respecting individual human rights.

The omissions in the present bill of rights permits such tribalism although it is cunningly concealed in human rights terminology.

And the consequences of this ‘tribalism’ is utterly brutal, most particularly for Maori – the social statistics, which involve the violation of many core minimum human rights, are very clear on this.

The Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of a future New Zealand constitution would mean, in my view, that New Zealand will quickly descend into a social abyss.

Human rights development e.g. the inclusion of the omitted human rights, would virtually come to a halt. New Zealand would be ‘human rights in name only’.

It is because of the possibility that aberrant States might fraudulently abuse human rights in this way that the last article, Article 30, in the UDHR states:

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”.

Consequently if a complaint was lodged with the UN Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see Article 5(1)) I cannot see how it would fail.

In my view, if the amendment bill is passed into law and entrenches the present bill of rights it would, even if the globally dominant neo liberal ideology is superseded,  continue to ensure compatibility with Maori ‘tribalism’ (and the Green Party Charter, see above) and serve, very largely, in my view, the interests of the ‘bi-cultural’ bureaucratic elite.

Human rights certainly seems side-lined in the Key Government’s Constitutional Review. The Constitutional Advisory Panel to oversee the review consists of 12 appointees whose biographical information show none have had a human rights background ( Media Release: Constitutional Advisory Panel named, 4 August 2011, Human Rights Network, New Zealand).

Also, an Independent Maori Constitutional Working Group, convened by Professor Margaret Mutu (Ngati Kahu) and its Chairperson is Moana Jackson (Ngati Kahungunu/Ngati Porou), was set up.

According to Jackson: “It works quite independently of the Constitutional Review proposed by the Crown and will attempt to initially promote widespread discussion among all Maori over the next twelve months followed by wider community sector

discussion says”.

And Jackson adds: “The issue is not how the Treaty might fit into a constitution but how a constitution might be based upon the Treaty,” (Media Release: ‘Independent Constitutional working group’ 5 August 2011, Human Rights Network, New Zealand

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peace-movement-aotearoa/independent-maori-constitutional-working-group-encourages-distinction/216054435108600 ).

But to my knowledge Maori are not being informed of the benefits that would accrue to them if the omitted human rights were included in New Zealand’s human rights law. These omitted human rights would automatically be included in the Treaty of Waitangi.

As would be expected, if you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the inclusion of the omitted human rights would of great benefit to both Maori and Pakeha.

Fighting for ethical human rights i.e. the inclusion of the omitted rights and ensuring ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’, would, in my view, help set many Maori (and Pakeha) free – from the streets, crime, drugs, dependency, and enable them, with greater independence, to aspire to small business (made extremely difficult because of tribal attachments, in my view).

That many Maori (and Pakeha) appear to be operating well below potential seems apparent. Maori are worse off – a number completely crushed by the discrimination of their own people (whakapapa) as well as Pakeha (social class discrimination) – rarely ever admitted, of course – and wander the streets of the city seemingly aimlessly. In my view, they would not have stood a chance.

And (if one should be surprised) there is strong anecdotal evidence that many ordinary Maori have benefited little, or not at all, from the treaty settlements.

And that many are not waiting around for any share of the compensation is indicated by one in six living in Australia (see Race Relations in 2011, cited above, p81). As with Pakeha there is likely to be many ‘tall poppies’ amongst them who could have helped take Maori and New Zealand forward.

The inclusion of the omitted rights, and interpreted ethically, would, for example, enable greater bottom-up development enabling Maori to reach their full potential as well as having a ‘voice’ of their own for the poor in the mainstream media i.e. the inclusion of the individual and collective rights to economic and social development would be included in the bill of rights as well as the prohibited ground of social class discrimination (which also allows the mainstream media to discriminate), as well as including non-discrimination on the grounds of birth (which includes descent i.e. family lineage or whakapapa).

An important historical fact which I discovered but, as is very likely the case with nearly all other New Zealanders, have never heard mentioned that the English laws, including ‘imperial laws’ the UK Bill of Rights 1689 and the Magna Carta 1297 (and also English common law rights), came into force in New Zealand, on the 14th January, 1840, predating the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, on the 6th February 1840, by 23 days ((English Laws 1908, No.55, http://www.enzs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1908/1908C055.pdf ).

The above imperial laws are still in effect in New Zealand (see Imperial Laws Application Act 1988).

Consequently, historically, human rights were the foundation of New Zealand not the Treaty of Waitangi as we are being constantly told.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often described as ‘A Magna Carta for all humanity, Human Rights for All’ (United Nations, www.un.org/rights/50/carta.html ).

The Magna Carta is said to establish the rule of law. Fiona Crichton states:  “Heralded as the beginning of English constitutional law…..it deals with the relationship of the Crown and the Church, and the Crown and common people” (The New Zealand Legal System, Fiona Crichton, Auckland District Law Society Inc., p17, http://www.adls.org.nz/information-for-public/legal-system ).

Also, the Bill of Rights 1689 is a predecessor of the United States Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (Bill of Rights-1689, Australianpolitics.com, http://australianpolitics.com/democracy-and-politics/bill-of-rights-1689 ).

Crichton states that Bill goes further than the Magna Carta: “The bill went further than setting out the relationship of the Crown to parliament in that, in part, it identified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty” (The New Zealand Legal System, Fiona Crichton, Auckland District Law Society Inc., p17, http://www.adls.org.nz/information-for-public/legal-system ).

Finally, human rights not only predated the treaty in New Zealand but have always been a part of New Zealand’s constitutional law and it has been what the country has stood for domestically and in foreign policy and which many New Zealanders would have died for in times of war – how many would die for the Treaty of Waitangi?.

Affirmative Action for High Achievers

Another social problem more recently coming to light is Asian discrimination. The NZ Human Rights Commission is recommending a ‘focus on inclusion’ to help address growing discrimination towards Asians but, in my view, Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, would add ‘insult to injury’ when he suggests that this very high achieving group should receive affirmative action (see below).

One of the two priorities of the NZ Human Rights Commission with respect to discrimination is to ‘actively focus on inclusion in all aspects of New Zealand life as a means to break down discrimination against Asian New Zealanders and other minority ethnic groups” (Race Relations in 2011, NZ Human Rights Commission, Ch 4, p23, pub March 2012, Auckland, New Zealand ).

According to Race Relations in 2011, annual UMR Research surveys on perceived discrimination undertaken since 2001, ‘have consistently shown Asian people to be perceived as the most discriminated against’.

It states: “An average of around 75 per cent of survey respondents identified Asian people as suffering “a great deal” or “some” discrimination” (see citation above).

The Race Relations Commissioner, Joris de Bres, considers Asians should be given affirmative action.

He told the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils in Wellington: “There are very few Asians on the boards of District Health Boards, not enough Asian teachers in our schools, not enough Asian local councilors community board members and Asian migrants continue to face discrimination in applying for jobs.’

Mr de Bres said that one of the organizations that has strongly focused on Asian recruitment over a recent years is the New Zealand Police…..All public agencies should be doing the same. Some private sector organizations, such as the major banks, have also reached out to Asian communities because it makes good business sense.’ (‘Asians face most discrimination in NZ – survey’, February 11, 2012 Source: ONE News).

But Asians are generally acknowledged to have a strong work ethic and are high achievers despite often being handicapped by having to learn English. For instance, they are by far the highest achievers when it comes to gaining university entrance at school.

In the Ministry of Education’s table of Highest Attainment of School Leavers (2009) it shows that those ethnic groups who reach university entrance level (or level 3 qualification or higher) are as follows: European/Pakeha, 49 percent, Maori, 20 percent, Pasifica, 25 percent, Asian, 65 per cent[my underline, emphasis].

(see Table 3.2.1, Education Counts, ch3 Indicators and Evidence, Ministry of Education, published September, 2010, http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2523/82497/chapter-3-indicators-and-evidence ).

It seems absurd that New Zealand may now provide affirmative action for perhaps its highest achieving group. Consequently, I see such affirmative action as being far more of an ‘insult’ than a help.

I consider the reasons for discrimination towards Asians would be very largely due to the many human rights omissions in the bill of rights.

Although the bill of rights contains non-discrimination on the grounds of race (s19(1), BORA) overall the omissions were devised, in my view, to crush human potential in ‘bi-cultural’ elite interests, so this could well have overridden non-discrimination – such discrimination, in my experience, being notoriously hard to prove anyway.

Consequently Asians could be seen as victims of the ‘anti-tall poppy’ culture a consequence of the mass conformity required to execute ‘bi-cultural’ discrimination on the basis of social class/whakapapa (see below) in a country where the concept of‘ ‘deserving’ is rapidly losing all meaning.

That I consider they were victims rather than directly targeted is because unlike the ‘tall poppies’ born in New Zealand it often takes a long time before Asians and many other recent immigrants to adjust – so being, naturally, reluctant to ‘speak out’ in a new country they pose less of a threat than ‘tall poppies’ born in New Zealand and are actually preferred by the State.

But claims made by bureaucrats or ‘captured academics’ that recent immigrants represent a ‘brain exchange’ to counteract concerns about the ‘brain drain’ is disingenuous because it fails to take into account that any political involvement and much original entrepreneurial activity (the Number ‘8’ wire) requires long experience and a knowledge as well as a strong attachment to New Zealand  (see Glass,Hayden & Choy, Wai (2001),“Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?” Treasury working 01/22, http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2001/01-22 ).

Ethical Human Rights, Development and Globalization

In my view New Zealand should, with the permission of the people, take a gamble on the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (I believe it will replace neo liberalism) which is simply based on the view that all should be ensured, at the least, their core minimum rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, at the very least, this would mean both being able to survive with dignity as well as having the added dignity of being able to help oneself. At present while both should be of equal status dependency, even though on benefits below the poverty line, is encouraged while helping oneself is severely discriminated against.

Both ‘survival rights’ and ‘self-help rights’ are reflected in the UDHR (Art 22) which states: “Everyone has the right to social security and is entitled to realization…..of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensible for his dignity and the free development of his personality”.

My book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) was recommended on the United Nations website for two years and provides the basis of the ethical approach – see below for further articles.

Both the massive rebuilding following the tragic earthquakes in Christchurch as well as what I describe below as the New Zealand Tragedy are further additional very important reasons why the ethical approach should be adopted apart from simply being, in my view, the only way the aspirational UDHR can be realistically interpreted.

In the Auckland High Court in June 2010 I described what I considered to be a New Zealand Tragedy – many who were ‘crushed and isolated’ and later to showing up in the social statistics as high levels of mental illness and most likely it was many of their children that suffered very high levels of abuse and neglect. Included in this group of beneficiaries were also a number of ‘tall poppies’ – the ‘best and the brightest’ – from all social classes a number of whom would have subjected to extreme isolation and serious mental illness (see submission, ‘Freedom is not an impossible dream’ to Auckland High Court, www.hrc2001.org.nz , also see ‘Ethical human rights likely to be many children’s and freedom’s last hope in New Zealand’ http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/26/18708196.php ).

.

I hope to make sure the above-mentioned children, when they get older, know what the State and the Maori elite put their parents through – forgiveness is likely to be a major issue for these children as well as self-forgiveness for the parents.

Also, I consider many of these beneficiaries, which included ‘tall poppies’ from all social classes who did not join the mass exodus as well as many small economic and social entrepreneurs should be compensated for the brutal discrimination they were subjected to over about 20 years – this is where affirmative action permitted by the bill of rights (Section 19(2), BORA) should and, in my view, is meant to apply not as at present for those higher on the social scale including the ‘bi-cultural’ elite chosen, as evidenced by the human rights omissions, largely according to descent not merit.

However, many ‘tall poppies’ joined the mass exodus overseas. The country was ‘dumbed down’, in my view, to ensure no bottom-up challenge which might slow the hegemonic ambitions of a ‘bi-cultural’ bureaucratic elite supported by like-minded bureaucratic elites around the world.

I consider it very important that the truth of the tragedy is admitted publicly to enable forgiveness. Also, unless the truth is told so the fear that pervades the country is overcome it will likely seriously slow progress.

The confusion described in the media reports of the court case (see at the end of submission to the Auckland High Court above) with respect to the lack of human rights education which I raised in my court appearance was because I was under pressure at the time and forgot why I had raised it but on reflection it was because I had stood for the Human Rights Party whose platform was an ethical approach to human rights and I considered that if New Zealanders had been educated in human rights the party would have gained many more votes.

The presiding High Court Judge, Lyn Stevens (now on the Court of Appeal) believed my account asking me why I had not informed New Zealand society earlier and also how the media reports (see end of the above submission to Auckland High Court) ignored the New Zealand Tragedy (‘The New Zealand establishment closes ranks as a major human rights tragedy unfolds’, http://www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/new-zealand-establishment-closes-ranks-major-human-rights-tragedy-unfolds ).

I attributed what happened in the New Zealand Tragedy to the large number of omissions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 most particularly non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin (social status at birth) (and this would also include the exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of birth which includes descent, family lineage or whakapapa).

Also, there were many other exclusions such as economic, social and cultural rights as well as the right to human rights education, while required under section 5(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 according to the Human Rights Commission it was never funded.

New Zealand’s report, ‘Questions Posed on Treatment of Maori, Asylum Seekers, Human Trafficking’, to the UN Human Rights Committee was headed: Delegation: “We Are Determined, as a Country, to Make Human Rights Relevant in the Daily Lives of New Zealanders and of Citizens around the World”

This was reiterated twice in the body of the report and Simon Power, the former Minister of Justice, stated:

“In concluding the two-day discussion, Mr. Power emphasized that the challenge for his and any Government was to ensure human rights were pertinent in the daily lives of citizens and, in doing so, bolster the application of internationally-agreed rights instruments, including the Covenant.  New Zealand must work hard so that its citizens did not believe such treaties — and discussion of their application — were the remit of high academic and international bodies” (Human Rights Committee Concludes Consideration of New Zealand’s Fifth Report; General Assembly, HR/CT/721, 16 March 2010 ).

However, to my knowledge, since the above statements were made and despite the present review no such education is taking place.

I also consider Christchurch would benefit considerably from this ethical approach to human rights. I am very concerned at the effects of the human rights omissions on the rebuilding of Christchurch already having to deal with serious aftershocks  – see my article, ‘Top-down bureaucratic neo liberalism is threatening the Christchurch rebuild – an ethical human rights is required’, http://www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/top-down-bureaucratic-neo-liberalism-threatening-christchurch-rebuild-ethical-human-rights-a , anthony ravlich’s blog, guerilla media ). I am presently starting to get some influential people on LinkedIn and Twitter watching the progress of the ethical approach.

The exclusion of non-discrimination on the grounds of social origin permitted social class discrimination and also socio-economic (i.e. wealth) discrimination which both strongly privileges a left minority (really affirmative action permitted by section 19(2) of the bill of rights) while also accommodating the neo liberal focus on middle class human rights and development and the Corporations.

The omissions which resulted in extreme top-down control was also compatible with Maori ‘tribalism’ as well as the Green Party charter based on ‘limited resources’ and ‘redistribution of wealth’ rather than growing human knowledge as well as the wealth – it’s the growth of human knowledge that really concerns these ideologies, in my view.

These ideologies also accommodate collectivism based on social class/socio-economic (wealth) discrimination (neo liberalism), Maori based on discrimination with respect to birth which includes descent, family lineage or whakapapa, while the Green Charter has also shown it accommodates collectivism based on social class discrimination.

The mass conformity required to implement this very discriminatory human rights agenda meant that the ‘tall poppies’ were discriminated against e.g. ‘over qualified’, ‘does not fit in’, ‘rocks the boat’, ‘trouble’, with help only directed at those who, for one reason or another, did not help themselves –  many may have realized that they would get better treatment if they simply stayed in a state of dependency.

Under the dominance of the collective this meant that individual ‘freedom of thought, conscience, expression, belief’ which enable the search for truth and reaching one’s full potential was marginalized leaving those in the establishment with little more than ‘collective thought, collective conscience, unable to ‘speak out’, and having to abide by the very discriminatory bill of rights’ (also see ‘Fear of Freedom: collectivist bill of

rights reducing New Zealanders to dependency’, www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/fear-freedom-collectivist-bill-rights-reducing-new-zealanders-dependency-0).

Many within these tribal collectives, in my view, would suffer from ‘arrested development’ able to do little more than blame others for their plight and are unwilling to look at themselves. These tribal collectives certainly appear to need to look at their own short comings, which I consider are numerous, but adopting ethical human rights would, in my view, help them considerably in this.

Ethical human rights is not anti-collectivism – the human family is a great collective – but when it involves discrimination which deprives individuals their core minimum rights then it fails to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which emphasizes individual rights (while also requiring the latter to exercise duties to the community).

The above discriminatory ideologies serve the collective dominated by a bureaucratic elite (a bi-cultural bureaucratic elite in New Zealand’s case) who are, in turn, supported by like-minded global bureaucratic elites (see ch 5 of my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’, Lexington books, 2008, which was recommended on the UN website for about two years).

Whereas in ethical human rights the emphasis is on the individual who, at the very least, is able to survive with dignity while having the added dignity of being able to help themselves while exercising duties to the community i.e. the human family [this sentence has been rewritten to conform better with human rights terminology].

.While neo liberalism, ‘tribalism’, or the Green Charter may pay lip service to self-help but in reality small economic and social entrepreneurs and their new and radical ideas which would grow human knowledge and wealth and take society forward (as well as provide much employment) are severely suppressed. Although these ideologies accommodate improvements to the old ideas of existing Corporations, albeit with an occasional show of defiance.

Ethical human rights emphasizes bottom-up development and maximizing individual potential so new, radical ideas can be found to address major social problems and grow the knowledge necessary for greater space travel necessary for humanities future survival.

The rebuilding of Christchurch following the massive and tragic earthquakes could lead the way for the rest of New Zealand.

The above New Zealand Tragedy may well have global implications e.g. the largely social class discrimination in Britain and I consider the mainly socio-economic (wealth) discrimination in America both would have the same effect – the ‘crushing and isolation’ of many leading to major social problems as well as the relegation of individual freedom of thought, conscience, expression, belief and therefore the seeking of truth and reaching full potential to the margins of society or forcing many overseas.

With the ethical approach I consider the world now has not only a far more principled approach than neo liberalism but, as my work is showing, it is also realistic – not only will the ethical bottom-up emphasis on development create the new/radical ideas necessary to address major social problems (and environmental problems), help humanity’s survival in traveling to other planets which in turn promises to considerably further the development of human knowledge as well as ensure a large supply of available resources. But also small/medium business will very likely considerably decrease unemployment.

In addition, because the ethical approach is non-political i.e. emphasizing the core minimums are provided rather than regime change, it offers a very realistic promise of huge reductions in military spending which will help considerably in paying for this ethical approach. This is in addition to the savings made in having to contain discontented internally who under the ethical approach would have a ‘realistic hope’ (Also see our council’s submission to the United Nations, ‘New Zealanders must ‘speak out’ about omitted rights or be reduced to mere numbers’,  www.hrc2001.org.nz ).

The ethical human rights emphasis on ‘survival and self-help’ rights promises huge savings in military spending which in turn would help pay for the former:

(1) A Press Release by the United Nations on 1 September 2010 was headed: ” Millennium Development Goals Moral Imperative, but Largely Off-track for Poorest, Least Politically Powerful People, Says Declaration at DPI/NGO Conference – Achieving Millennium Development Goals Would Cost Less Than One Tenth of Annual Global Military Spending, Round Table Told [their underline]” ( Press Release, Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York, NGO/708, PI/1958, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ngo708.doc.htm ).

(2) Also the World Bank estimates that for less than 4 percent of global military spending, poverty and hunger could be halved. But instead military spending grows, 5.9 percent in 2009′ ( cited in Can we Disarm to Develop? Disarmament Times Fall 2010, http://disarm.igc.org/images/PDF/dt.2010.3.mdgs.pdf ).

(3) In addition, in ‘Global Day of Action on Military Spending’ on ‘Military Spending vs. Millennium Development Goals’ states: …’all eight MDGs combined cost less than a fifth of yearly military spending’ ( MDGs are the Millenium Development Goals, November 18th 2010, http://demilitarize.org/military-spending/military-spending-vs-millennium-development-goals/).

All countries are expect to adhere to the core minimums therefore enabling fair competition rather than China and India having the advantage gained by exploitation of cheap labour.

Also, under the ethical approach regionalization e.g. the East Asia regional bloc, would not be necessary – it would just be an added layer of bureaucracy and greater social control at the expense of freedom.

While further research is required I cannot, at this stage, see any incompatibility between the ethical human rights approach and parliamentary sovereignty. We could have both if this is chosen by the people.

The ethical approach would require a very firm ‘human rights bottom-line’ – the core minimum obligations of the State with respect to both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights which would be entrenched and made supreme law.

While parliament would retain sovereignty when dealing with the higher levels of human rights and this would reflect the views of the political (or ‘ethical’) parties chosen by the democratic majority.

As described with the present bill of rights the inclusion of all the omitted rights and ensuring the core minimums it is very likely to be the cultural impact rather than its effectiveness in the courts that will have the major influence on New Zealand society.

Also unlike neo liberalism the ethical approach requires duties on the part of individual and groups in society. Article 29 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible”.

I consider an important duty, especially in a democratic society, is that the public need to be informed of important truths and this would ensure open government.

Patrice Faubert (2012) puète, pouète, peuète, paraphysicien, Pat dit l’ invité sur “hiway.fr”

Bambini volati
Bambini condizionati
Da parte delle autorità
Del terrore religioso
Ai metodi mafiosi
Così anche i fascisti
Così anche gli droitistes
Così anche gli integralisti
Non credono alla innéité
E sanno che tutto è programmato
Con un’istruzione adeguata
La prova?
Bambini volati
Alle madri anarchistes
Bambini
Sotto l’autorità franquiste
Ma non c’è soltanto in Spagna
Che sempre, questa pratica castagne
Sotto altre forme
Sotto altre norme
Così si assimila
Mille e mille
Già, precedentemente, la nobiltà francese
Non credeva con comodità
Ai geni della convenienza
La prova?
Oh! non è nuova!
Fuoco il fratello di Louis il quatorzième
Signore, fu elevato come una ragazza
Per invertrirlo, affinché non ami
Che i ragazzi, e che non splende
Senza essere possibile, rivale del re
La innéité, nessuno non vi crede!
Il buono senso, ciò si vede!
Altrimenti, allora perché?
Bambini volati
Bambini programmati
Bambini
Non c’è soltanto in Spagna
Che sempre, questa pratica castagne
Sotto altre forme
Sotto altre norme
Così si assimila
Mille e mille

Patrice Faubert (2012) puète, pouète, peuète, paraphysicien, impasse dice l’ospite “su hiway.fr”

Patrice Faubert (2000) pouète, peuète, puète, paraphysicien, Pat dit l’invité sur “hiway.fr”

Là ha t una vita prima della morte?
La vita uno è incoronato sport!
Occorre lavorare, occorre sudare
I cattolici sempre coliche
Chi conducono il mondo al randello
Amano soffrire, amano bandire
Occorre meritare, occorre cacarne
I protestanti al denaro
Sempre prestano il grande giuramento
Certamente, sono un miscredente
Le religioni, grande fiera alle illusioni
Non c’è nessuna vita dopo la morte
Ma, vi ha t una vita prima della morte?
La vita uno è incoronato sport!
Alla fabbrica, all’ufficio, alla fase
Nelle nostre relazioni, nelle nostre amicizie, nei nostri amori
Sempre compararsi
Sempre calunniarsi
Sempre etichettarsi
Sempre lusingarsi
Sempre misurarsi
Sempre farsi la guerra
Sempre farsi la miseria
Ovunque, è il cimitero!
Là ha t una vita prima della morte?
La vita uno è incoronato sport!
Qualsiasi campione, qualsiasi campionessa
Per la sofferenza, per la diffidenza
Per la demenza, per la vendetta
Per l’intolleranza, per la violenza
Per l’offerta, per la pretesa
Senza alcuna clemenza
Con sempre riferimenti
Là ha t una vita prima della morte?
La vita uno è incoronato sport!
E vivamente che galleggia
Pioggie piene della vera sommossa

Patrice Faubert (2000) pouète, peuète, puète, paraphysicien, impasse dice l’ospite “su hiway.fr”

Quanta energia critica si disperde di nuovo in questo tentativo di ridar vitalità sociale a un congegno parlamentare partitocratico in fase sempre più senile, e probabilmente terminale!

 *

Ma è possibile che si creda ancora di poter scoprire un nuovo soggetto politico – nel senso di regime – valido per riformare questo tipo di istituzioni? Quando ammetteremo che il regime parlamentare del vecchio stato-nazione novecentesco non serve ormai a nient’altro che mantenere in piedi un’ossatura istituzionale capitalista globale, soprattutto metropolitana, proprio quando i principali valori su cui fa perno – la cosiddetta democrazia, in primo luogo, e persino lo stesso lavorismo cristiano-capitalista – si stanno svuotando di quei fondamenti etici e ideologici alienanti che si pretendeva assoluti e da riprodurre all’infinito?

Non c’è più possibilità di una speranza organizzata, come la chiamava Sandro Medici su Il Manifesto, all’interno dei meccanismi politici dell’attuale regime. E anche se si pensasse di averla di nuovo trovata, per un altro tentativo di palazzo, il vecchio stato-nazione novecentesco riuscirebbe sempre ad annullarla con la sua pesantezza, e assorbirla nelle sue inerzie, come ormai avrebbe dovuto insegnarci la storia degli ultimi decenni. Ma soprattutto la nuova fase di centralizzazione del comando istituzionale liberista.

La politica nel regime, e del regime, ciò che stolti – e interessati – si ostinano a chiamare democrazia, non riesce nemmeno più a esercitare quel ruolo di corpo intermedio di cui si parla, ormai totalmente neutralizzata dal potere economico, soprattutto attraverso il controllo finanziario e mediatico globale. Ma i nostri Donchisciotte insistono, come Medici e tutti gli altri quando affermano la necessità di “riannodare il filo spezzato tra politica e società, e forse costruire una soggettività nuova che si proponga di aprire promettenti prospettive”.

Promettenti per chi e per cosa?

Forse per tentare di reintegrare nei meccanismi di regime quell’altro soggetto politico sempre più reale e importante, nel suo processo di formazione globale, internazionale, che come Occupy WS degli Stati Uniti ha già fissato la nuova scadenza di visibilizzazione, estensione e accumulazione politica per il prossimo 12 di maggio, dopo il successo del mayday?

Com’è possibile pensare che si possano integrare, per esempio in una rinnovata forma-partito, le moltitudini attive che hanno capito che non si tratta più di cambiare regimi politici ma il proprio sistema che li produce?

Tanto più che, se analizziamo le componenti reali di questo movimento tuttavia in costruzione ed espressione incipienti, nei termini classici della politica occidentale, un’altra cosa va sottolineata: è la prima volta nella storia del capitalismo che si assiste alla possibilità di un processo di ricomposizione politica reale della classe antagonista al Capitale. E non stiamo trattando di classi statali o nazionali di lavoratori/impiegati stabili del capitale e dello stato: il processo è globale, a partire dall’emergenza tunisina che si è subito estesa, e sembra proprio lasciar dietro di sé tutte le ideologie lavoriste e sinistre, nelle metropoli.

Se da un lato non funzionano ormai più – e finalmente! – le tradizionali categorie sociologiche come la rifritta classe lavoratrice novecentesca, con le sue temporanee eccellenze di crescita politica (lavoratore professionale d’inizio secolo, quello del ’17-18, o il lavoratore-massa dei ’60-70) o le maccheroniche “classi medie” occidentali della seconda metà del secolo XX (ed ora cinesi, come cominciano a pretendere alcuni!) che racchiudono in generale vere frazioni capitalizzate dei settori di lavoratori più garantiti, dall’altro i nuclei più avanzati del movimento riscoprono una a una tutte le contraddizioni chiave del sistema. E quindi cresce il potenziale protagonista di ogni settore della classe, oltre le sue frazioni stabilmente impiegate, lavoratrici. Precari, migranti e disoccupati in prima fila.

Allo stesso tempo che rifiutano o sorpassano le ideologie delle fasi precedenti di lotta sociale aperta, rimettono le ragioni dello scontro sul piano centrale, non solo della legge del valore come le vecchie sinistre radicali, ma proprio sulla contraddizione centrale e generale: beni comuni monopolizzati e alienazione universale, sfruttamento globale del lavoro e delle risorse, questione del benessere comune (Bien Vivir) e dell’equilibrio bioregionale e naturalmente internazionale e planetario.

Allora: non è questa la vera classe operaia – operaio-Gaia – in fase di ricomposizione globale, che abbandona gli orpelli del lavorismo delle sinistre del sistema – radicali o riformiste – per esempio con la critica sempre più radicale al sindacalismo capitalista e di regime, impostando la lotta di classe – non ancora così formulata ma non ci sarà molto da aspettare – sulle sue basi fondamentali: la proprietà e l’alienazione universale, e poi logicamente lo sfruttamento prosumer, come suggerisce mi sembra Formenti?

Certo, ciò è possibile se si abbandonano, come sta succedendo proprio negli Stati Uniti, i concetti sociologici e lavoristi di classe, e si recupera la valenza dialettica generale del concetto.

Classe non più come settore sociale determinato, magari politicizzato come detta la lontanissima tradizione marxista-leninista, e nemmeno classe solo come composizione formata e organica dei suoi settori più significativi: lavoratori, disoccupati, precari, studenti (operai in formazione) migranti (operai in mobilità estrema), riproduttori (-trici), molti di loro metropolitani della costellazione prosumer, ecc. Bensì come approccio politico materialista (ora sarebbe il sintetico o proletario 99%) alla realtà della contraddizione del sistema. Da superare radicalmente.

Morta la “classe”, viva la classe.

Come paradigma analitico della polis; e intesa organizzativamente come rete di reti, paradigma politico dei processi sociali sotto la contraddizione fondamentale del sistema.

Cioè assumendo la vera dialettica del concetto “classe”, strumento politico radicale, generale e aperto a tutte le estensioni nazionale della classe, in ogni realtà bioregionale ed economica, con tutte le assolute diversità di reti-movimento, sempre più connesse globalmente.

Non più meccaniche di classi (lavoratrici), con le loro forme o formazioni (politiche), ma interpretazioni dialettiche di movimenti reticolari, assunti come classe nell’analisi in modo materialista radicale e dialettico nel fondo, non nella fabbrica! E soprattutto a scala mondiale. Il sogno di Marx.

Ed ecco che ora sì, finalmente, possiamo recuperare le domande di fondo che alcuni marxiani si son già fatti molto tempo fa’ sul lavorismo, su quel mito-virus di classe lavoratrice che diventa La Classe Operaia, come Romano Alquati per esempio, e anche sull’assurdo ‘operaio sociale’ che si potrebbe accettare solo quando operaio è sinonimo di lavoratore, o peggio ancora come suo sottoprodotto, lasciando allora Senza Nome la classe antagonista reale. Troppo facile e comodo sto travestimento quasi iperbolico di un ‘operaio sociale’, inventato dall’operaismo lavorista senza fare l’autocritica sul lavorismo concettuale della “classe operaia = lavoratrice”. Non era potere operaio, ma potere del Lavoro! Lavoro salariato, capitalista.

La classe operaia reale non è lavoratrice. I lavoratori ‘classici’ come i recenti ‘prosumer’ sono solo un settore minoritario della Classe Globale, con incidenze decrescenti più ci allontaniamo dalle metropoli e dall’era industriale.

Quindi, classe antagonista reale non secondo il dogma ideologico della legge del valore lavoro – strumento marxiano essenziale certo, se non diventa diktat dell’ideologia marxista lavorista come un assoluto determinante per definire le classi – ma secondo l’unico quadro di messa a fuoco generale della lotta di classe: la contraddizione fondamentale tra appropriazione privata capitalista dei beni comuni, e dei mezzi produttivi, internet compreso naturalmente, e carattere sociale del lavoro, dell’attività creativa/produttiva generale. La classe antagonista è qui, tuta in queste contraddizioni senza ovviarne nessuna! e non unicamente nella fabbrica – industriale o TIC – di creazione, produzione ed espropriazione di valore!

Il liberismo ha scatenato le furie della precarietà: ha spianato così la via alla ricomposizione politica della classe al completo. Perché non c’è come un precario per riconoscersi facilmente come “soggetto” operaio globale. E allora eccolo il “nuovo” soggetto in formazione, soggetto reale nella polis materialista, che non chiede di riannodare il filo spezzato tra politica e società ma POTERE, Kratos, senza nuove mediazioni alienate e alienanti come i partiti del regime parlamentare.

E lo pratica disarcionando il mito-virus della classe lavoratrice garantita, quindi pronto non solo a spazzare i regimi politici e istituzionali del capitale, partiti in prima fila, ma a spezzare le proprie radici del sistema, al completo. Fuori e dentro le fabbriche, vecchie e nuove, Foxcom in Cina o la fabbrica-globale Internet. Riappropriazione dei Beni Comuni per un Bien Vivir globale.

Poi vedremo se e come assumerebbe nuove forme politiche precise e stabili, se fosse necessario, per accelerare l’estinzione dei sistemici stati-nazione in primo luogo, e della forma-stato preistorica, definitivamente.

A young person may have been labeled chubby, for example, yet over time lost weight and just by looking at them it is obvious to anyone they are are no longer the same physically. After a while that label can fade and people see them as something else, whether that thinness is good or bad. That is what is wonderful about life, it is always changing causing potentialities to arise and fall. Whatever the present, there is always the future and possibility for reorganization, rewriting and morphing all over into something else. That’s life’s beauty.

Bringing about changes to one’s own reputation can be easy. As life goes on one grows what was once your reputation becomes old news, and the new person you are is what people see, think about and discuss. For most folks it’s just that simple, we work hard in life to do things and get things we want, and in doing so our reputation and the labels people see when they look at us, morph.

For some other people however, the process is not simple. They need to put in extra effort with regards to their reputation because of something they have done or because of something that was done to them.

Neither is necessarily more difficult, it depends on the person.

For me I learned my reputation was something I would have to address later in life. It was due to something I did or that was done to me, depending on where the truth lies about my past which is something still being unearthed. I became a convicted felon because of a crime in which I was involved during 1990 in my home country America. I was seventeen at the time and a minor, but I was charged as an adult essentially to set an example for others by branding me for the rest of my life – no matter how much I might change from the boy I was at seventeen.

My crime was being around during some of the planning, doing some preparations for and keeping lookout during a violent student protest. Three students, myself included, were the main people involved with certain others keeping look out and one other that drove a car. We made the unfortunate choice to vandalize the president of a university’s unoccupied office by setting fire to it. The focus of the protests was getting the university to divest from holdings in companies linked to the South African government, which at the time was one of the most brutally oppressive governments in the world. There were also the lesser interests of pushing for better civil rights for minority students and professors at the college.

In the end, after arrests were made by the police, I was the only person convicted by both the state where the crime occurred and by the federal government, even though I was a bit player. The main actor, the person that actually set the fire, Kofi Taha, was only pursued by the state. The feds surprisingly decided to quietly drop all the charges.

I couldn’t understand the implications of being charged as an adult at the time and keeping it a permanent part of my record. I was too young and naïve. People said as long as I didn’t get any other blemishes on my record I could go on with my life as many people convicted of felonies had – that there were certainly people that had done much worse. After all, it was only a student protest and I wasn’t the one that actually committed the act of violence. As time went on and I older got, however, it seemed the crime actually followed me around, like a dark cloud. I had completely kept my nose clean, had no more charges against me, let alone convictions, I had stopped being involved in politics. My jobs consisted of things like construction, washing dishes, a prep cook, a house painter, landscaping, nursery work, a staff member at a facility for people with cognitive disabilities etc.

Yet the issue popped up at so many junctions. People told me I was being overly sensitive and that it would pass, but it never did. The more time went on the more isolated I had become as a result of the increasing frequency of my past rearing its head. I really didn’t understand and it confused me.

I remember being at one job and doing fine. I got along with everyone and worked hard to do my job and fulfill my duties. I was also working odd jobs doing landscaping simultaneously to bring in extra money. I liked the job, I got along with the people, going out for drinks after work etc, and the job itself made me feel as though I had accomplished a good thing at the end of the day.

Yet after about a month or two, I came into work one day and suddenly everyone had this odd expression on their faces as if I contracted a life threatening, untreatable and highly contagious disease. I wasn’t sure what was happening as things had been going great when one of my coworkers I had a great relationship with, said to me as she passed me “you’re going to have problems the rest of your life.” I just tried to keep going as I usually had and ignore it. What she said was pretty much all that was said openly afterwards, but things were never the same and people treated me with a subtle hostility at the job from that point on until I moved on.

It was typical – the same at about every job. Things would be going fine for a while, and then suddenly similar things would happen. I just ignored the coincidences. It felt as though someone with knowledge of my past was not only leaking what I did, but making it out to be worse than its was. But how could that be? I was doing nothing and this was America and we don’t do that here. Right?

I ignored it and let it roll off of my back. I stopped thinking about it and kept it moving. It wasn’t worth getting caught up in drama.

Things changed when I was attending the University of Connecticut. It had been thirteen years since I was a teenager of seventeen and became involved in the crime I had, but it came up very soon after I started taking classes within the program I intended to get my degree in. Again I ignored it, but as usual it wouldn’t let up.

I won’t go into all the details here (though if you are interested you can read about it at www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com) I will just say it progressively intensified and the harassment spread from the one professor that started it to certain of my classmates. It did make life difficult as there were only twenty one people allowed into the program I was in. Nonetheless, I made up my mind to graduate no matter what.

In my first semester senior year, however, I had enough with the behavior. It had gone well beyond what I had tolerated over the years and I felt it was about time I said something. I knew proving it would be difficult. I decided to mention it to a fellow classmate, who had at times acknowledged he saw it too. After trying in vain to convince me to change my mind about seeing redress, he made a startling admission.

He admitted to me that he was an undercover law enforcement personnel and had been on campus for eight years. He said if I went public with what happened his work on campus may be exposed. He thought it would endear himself to me and gain my respect and trust enough at least to purchase my silence. He was wrong.

Here was a person that not only participated in the harassment, but planned some of it. Now he was essentially admitting to me he was a dirty cop. I knew things about what he had done on campus like allowing underage kids to drink at parties he threw. He did worse like talking about trying to get his fraternity brother’s underage sisters to come to parties to get them drunk and sleep with them. He would actually brag about it.

So this dirty cop was supposed to be winning me over by acknowledging he was a cop and had been involved in not only harassing me, but spreading lies based on what I had done as a teenager. One such example was the lie perpetuated I was a terrorist. I was not nor had I ever been. This lie was compounded by people saying I was a Muslim. I was a Buddhist and had been for years and had never been a Muslim, not that there’s anything wrong with being Muslim. Same stuff just like at the other places. It was subtle and done when I wasn’t around, but now I had confirmation that it wasn’t just paranoia or an over active imagination. It was real.

After graduation – which I managed to accomplish – I decided to go public with what had really happened when I was a teenager and with who I was now. I started a website and began writing articles about what happened and my thoughts on harassment. Just living life and doing all the right things was not enough and for some reason my past was being stubborn. Also people that were supposed to be changing their minds with me and were supposed to support reform themselves were causing trouble and were fairly recalcitrant about seeing change and changing with it.

The crime I was involved in thirteen years prior while a teenager, was at a university I was not attending. In fact I was still in high school at the time. The students from the college in which the protest took place were not the only people I hung out with on that campus. I had other friends there. One such person warned me right after the incident happened that Kofi Taha was a fed. The incident was fairly high profile at the time, and he suspected as did other people Taha and myself were involved. He also suggested I stay away from Taha. I took his advice, though I wasn’t of the belief at the time Taha was law enforcement, and told Taha I was through and wanted nothing more to do with his political stuff.

I now have some evidence what I was told about Kofi Taha may be true, though it is circumstantial, and there’s more about that on my website, but without solid proof I can’t say 100%. It is a possibility. That much I can say.

If it is true, it means the crime itself, the majority of the actual planning and talking me into going along, all were a set up. Set up by law enforcement no less. I shouldn’t have gone along sure, but how backwards can you get?

They are supposed to find criminals, not create them out of whole cloth.

It has been said I have a checkered past due to my involvement in that crime. Though throughout the years it has really felt more like I was standing on a white floor and someone else I could not see was coloring every other white tile black, creating them by painting them on where they hadn’t existed before.

As I go through the process of searching for answers to my past and why these things are happening one thing is clear, the more I scratch the black tiles under my feet, the more I see white tiles that have been quickly and sloppily colored in. It’s a weak veil forged by Sharpies and it’s being blended away more and more everyday.

One thing I can say is I’m more and more happy the more I get my side of the story out there.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.