You are here

The failed promises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is a crucial document. The first 21 Articles of the Declaration all profess classical Western rights, also called liberty rights or “negative rights,” including the right to private property, freedom of speech and equality before the law. Universal human rights ideals are contrary to human nature, over-ride national and individual rights, fail to consider the finite nature of our planet, the limitations of multiculturalism, and the "success" of the human species.

Increasing world-scale problems

This promises a world in which human beings are ensured the ideology of freedom of expression and be protected against fear and poverty. Unfortunately, however, reports by the United Nations Development Programme spell out the rise of a disaster which distances us from the idealistic this world. Our world is facing complex global scale problems, such as war, religious intolerance, conflict, violence, hunger, poverty, illiteracy, pollution, crime, theft, fraud, murder, corruption, immortality, child abuse, human rights violation, oppression, inequality, injustice, nuclear weapons, overpopulation and global terror among others.


Multiculturalists state specifically that our societies should be based on the principle of various ethnic groups only united by “human rights.” But this is a weak "glue" for a society, to say the least. This means that your rights to decide the future of your society and your country, for instance in managing your immigration policies, are decided by our leaders and out of our hands. Originally meant to be a core of rights ensuring political and individual liberty, today human rights are increasingly used for the opposite purpose. They claim other people’s resources, property etc as a universal "right" of access! The very notion of human rights suffers from a kind of contradictory ideals .

Multiculturalism presumes the peaceful coexistence of many cultures within the boundaries of a single political unit (usually a nation). These ideals sound good, but humans are complex and they prefer boundaries, and thus they fail.

We have been brainwashed for decades in Western nations that we must embrace mass immigration for many reasons including the most popular - population growth, demographic imbalances, economic growth, and population decline.

New world order

The call for a "new world order" in 1990 raised optimism among people worldwide.

It refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government. Further, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders ‘must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’. For the poor, the majority of whom are people of colour and indigenous, the "new" seemed to be very much like the old. Changes in the global economy continue to favour the few, the elites. To them, it makes more sense to open our borders, invite illegal immigration, and risk rising lawlessness and terrorism. In fact, each such crisis becomes a potential instrument for change! Former President George H. W. Bush echoed that assurance. Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge.

Whose "human rights" should take precedence?

Moreover, who decides which “human rights” should take precedence? If you say that free migration should be a universal human right, you trample on the rights of the peoples at the host end of mass immigration to preserve their cultural heritage. Should Muslim nations, or overpopulation nations, be allowed to dump their unsustainable population growth in the West? Sharia laws tend not to respect human rights, allowing them to undermine countries that do respect individual rights. Democratic principles means that "human rights" will become a tool for undermining democratic nations in favour or totalitarian ones, precisely the opposite of what was originally intended.

Overpopulation not being addressed

We still have millions of unintended pregnancies, often resulting in unsafe abortion or maternal or infant death; and continuing rapid population growth in the world's poorest countries. Population growth, migration to urban areas, conflicting needs for existing land, and insufficient financial and natural resources have resulted in widespread homelessness and habitation in inadequate housing.

Migration from a country tends to encourage those who stay to have larger families and that when migration possibilities are reduced, population growth declines, thereby enhancing the prospects for improved well-being. Boundaries - to aid and migration - mean that populations are more likely to care for their own territories.

Westerners are the suckers of the 21st century. We fail to support our own interests and cultures. We exist solely as a vehicle for funding other nations, and as the obedient dumping ground for their excess population growth. How can Australia be selling off farm land, industries and water rights to overseas interests?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that all persons have a right to satisfaction of economic, social, and cultural needs. The convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women referred in its preamble to the particular disadvantages of women living in poverty.

Population growth which outpaces increases in production will make it increasingly difficult to satisfy the rights and needs of all population sectors. Contraception is a legitimate means of achieving this end.

We are, as a species, too successful and our success contains the seeds of not only the failure of the natural environment, but our own too.

Image icon 478px-Declaration_of_Human_Rights.jpg17.96 KB


Thank you, Bandicoot.

The vast majority of Australian 'human rights' activists are silent on the obvious denials of human rights to Australian citizens.

Basic human rights denied to ordinary Australians include:

  1. The right to a secure affordable shelter. In recent months,even those on middle class incomes are becoming stressed with housing poverty and lack of secure shelter as greedy landlords take advantage of the undemocratic imposition of population growth to jack up rents. For poor people the situation must be absolutely desperate as an exmple, during the 2009 Queensland state elections, in which I stood as a candidate, I met a woman on welfare who had to share, not her flat, not her room, but her bed, with another woman with whom she was not even intimate!
  2. The right to a decent income capable of meeting all of one's modest living expenses.

This silence cannot be an accident after many decades that the supposed "human rights" of people born outside Australia has been the almost exclusive focus of the fashionable supposedly dissident political intellectuals of Australia. It is evidence that their claimed commitment to human rights is a sham and a cover for the fact that they have undermined the welfare of ordinary Australians in the service of Australian and overseas ruling elites. They are obviously financially rewarded, even if not always directly for this betrayal of ordinary Australians.

See, also, Bandicoot's article "Selfish power of the growth lobby" of 10 Sep 2010 and comment "'Leftists' are tools of Australia's wealthy elite" (19 Sep 2010).

If Julia Gillard wants to improve the lives of Australians, the first thing she should do is fix the housing problem. Forget about broadband for now! First the basics. Housing a shelter is a basic human right. Due to speculation and ramped population growth, even more middle class people, and certainly families, have been excluded from home ownership and homelessness is rising. Let's get back to basic humanitarian equality and rights! Not only housing, but water and energy costs are soaring. Governments generally are failing to adequately fund violence prevention programs and social welfare services like child protection, homelessness and mental health.

Mark Arbib is now minister for social housing and homelessness and indigenous economic development. A national conference on homelessness has been told the problem will not improve until more money is provided to drug and alcohol prevention! Linking homelessness with marginal groups such as the indigenous, those with mental illness and drug dependency is a denial of reality, and muddying the cause and effect.

105,000 Australians are (officially) homeless on any given night.
In contrast to common perceptions of homelessness, women and children make up a large number of homeless in Australia. (2010). Of the 105,000 homeless, 44% are female, and 12% are children under 12 in families. Young people who are homeless are under an increasing risk of being homeless in the long term, and find it harder to gain education and support. More female young people are homeless than males.
Half of the people using homelessness services are families! They are the fastest growing group. Families homeless are not a visible group in Australia and it is not widely recognised.

There are many groups and individuals who have been made wealthy from our housing boom and "improved" prices! Those falling "between the cracks" are becoming more numerous simply because the cracks are widening due to even "affordable" housing not being affordable.

Expressing concern for the homeless females across Australia, the then Prime Minister’s wife recently urged the citizens to help them!

Talking at Brisbane's St John's Cathedral annual Loaves and Fishes luncheon on Tuesday 25th May, Therese Rein, as a guest speaker raised this issue and said that homeless women are “vulnerable and terrified of being attacked in cities”. She asked the community to “open its heart to them”. Why didn't she tackle her husband's "big Australia" policy, the cause of displacement?

Ben Chifley was a gentle giant of Australian politics who wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty to build a nation. We too easily forget our greatest, if they’re not sporting heroes, but Chifley’s contribution was long and immense.

With the war over and a shiver raised across the world, Chifley told Australia it would have to “populate or perish”. But with few candidates available from the traditional source of Britain, Australia had to tap into the waves of destitute and homeless European war refugees to get to its target of twenty million people.

With the aid of these New Australians, the energetic Chifley remodelled Australia and accelerated post-war reconstruction.

Now, Julia Gillard's efforts of "nation building" should be not to accommodate overseas homeless or those destitute by war, but the homeless and struggling in our own community. We don't need more people either! The rising violence and crime is a symptom of social dis-ease.

It is time to reconstruct our society, our nation, and re-build it to a patriotic and united entity.

Maybe this useless pathetic government prancing around in their green safety vests should pay more attention to the thousands of homeless Australians than the swarms of economic asylum seekers they are welcoming into Australia who contribute absolutely nothing apart from cheap labour. Oh most of them won't have to work anyway once they have received the hundred thousand or so dollars given to them in compensation for their terrible treatment once welcomed into Australia. You couldn't make it up. When is the taxpayer ever going to refuse to pay their taxes until the Morons who run this country work for us the people who pay their salary.

Editorial comment: Whilst the commentator has rightly raised the issue of the considerable cost to taxpayers and the procedural unfairness of favouring those prepared to bribe people smugglers over at least tens of millions of other asylum seekers in refugee camps, we don't know of evidence that those favoured asylum seekers are unwilling to work. Also, the issue of (currently) a few thouand asylum seekers trying to reach our shores is dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of legal migrants allowed annually into Australia.

"Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l'insurrection est pour le peuple, et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs". (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1793, article 35.)

When government violates the people's rights, insurrection is the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties for the people and every part of them.

Rights of Man and Citizens, 1793, Clause 35