Putting People First & Reversing the Surrender of Australia to Blind Ideology
What is globalisation?
Globalisation is the removal of economic and political borders, the global homogenising of cultures, and the surrender of democracy and sovereignty to a central controlling global authority. Globalisation seeks to replace national independence with global dependency and increased debt. Globalists believe all people in the world are fundamentally good except for those who disagree with their globalist ideology, and they therefore see no reason why the immigration floodgates should not be opened. Globalists focus upon ‘problems’ which are promoted by the UN as being ‘global’ (such as human rights, sustainability, migration, ‘climate change’ etc) and they believe the only way to address these problems is to transfer power and resources to the UN to enable the UN to increasingly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. Globalists pursue global interests, not national interests, they believe global conflicts and poverty can be eliminated by removing borders, and they believe our children should be educated as global citizens according to SDG 4.7. Globalists believe in a covert undemocratic long-term globalisation agenda, refusing to spell out final goals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
What is wrong with globalisation, why not put Australian interests last?
Falsely convincing Australians they come first – the use of soft laws and softer politicians to deceive the people, destroy democracy, & put the UN globalist ideology above people
The consequences of globalisation are potentially so horrendous to decent people that in order for globalists to ‘succeed’, deceit and total avoidance of democratic scrutiny are absolutely essential. This is clearly demonstrated with the UN's Agenda 21 program which has resulted in a revolution in Australia’s environmental laws which are now commonly imported from the UN or ‘globalised’ (18, 19, 20, 21, 2223 ). In fact, Agenda 21 is considered to represent the beginning of the ‘globalisation’ of Australia’s environmental laws. In other words, Agenda 21 destroyed Australian democracy and sovereignty and enabled importation of our environmental laws. In December 2016, at the Seventy-first Session of the UNGA, Australia voted NOT to oppose continued implementation of Agenda 21 (See A/71/463/Add.1).
From the outset, Agenda 21 was intended to be based upon deception. The UN described Agenda 21 as a ‘non-binding’, unenforceable, ‘soft-law’ document or simply a ‘consensus and political commitment’ or ‘blueprint for action’ (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). However, in spite of this, Chapter 8 of Agenda 21 and Principle 11 of the Rio Declaration specifically stated that signatory countries must enforce the dictates of the UN by incorporating the provisions of Agenda 21 into domestic legislation. When then Environment Minister Ros Kelly introduced Agenda 21 into Australian parliament on 26th May 1993 she described it as merely containing “recommendations”, although it was nevertheless a “massive document” or “blueprint” which would enable control of all organisations and individuals within Australia and around the world. The Australian people were told very little, but the official word was that Agenda 21 was simply a ‘consensus’ or ‘soft-law’ agreement and would be ‘non-binding’(30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 353637).
UN soft-law agreements are seen as the first part of the global law-making process since they establish global norms of behaviour which ultimately become binding global laws. Soft laws are preferred to maximise buy in for potentially unpopular or controversial reforms, and where there is the intent to lead on to binding global laws (38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45). While the ‘non-binding’ Agenda 21 agreement was transitioning into global law the Australian government took steps to enforce the provisions of Agenda 21 in domestic legislation. Initially this was done using the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, and later, the EPBC Act (46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 ). As the Australian government admitted in their “Road to Rio+20” fact sheet:
“Australia has participated in sustainable development discussions for more than four decades. We have signed international treaties, supported regional initiatives and enacted international commitments through new laws and policies at home”.
Further, the Government used the Tasmanian Dam Case to enable it to bypass the Constitution and the will of the people. The Australian government points out, by using international agreements to bypass the Constitution, they now obtain foreign legitimisation and legalisation of otherwise unconstitutional policies and therefore effectively bypass any democratic consideration by the Australian people.
For more than 2 decades successive Australian governments and State governments have been legislating the provisions of the UN Agenda 21 agreement into Australian laws while throughout this process they have falsely told the Australian people that Agenda 21 is ‘non-binding’. After decades of surrendering to various international agreements the UN now initiates and controls a multitude of domestic laws in countries around the world, including Australia. But the Australian people have been given no vote and continue to be insulted and deceived, even while politicians continue to enshrine UN dictates in domestic legislation.
“The Global Pact for Environment seeks to create a legal text that, together with the Sustainable Development Objectives adopted at the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2015, represents the pillars of global environmental governance…….In order that this pact becomes reality, it is necessary to fight against climate and environmental insecurity, to cooperate in achieving world environmental law”
As former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser summarises in “UN Poses Biggest Threat to our Sovereignty” (The Australian, 17/8/94):
“(Constitutional) changes are taking place without the knowledge, and certainly without the consent of, Australians…..are Australians to be masters of their own affairs or are Australians to give away their sovereignty to United Nations Committees?.......we give UN committees concerned with human rights the capacity to review and to take action that can lead to the overturning of Australian law. The Government is doing all this of course, without telling the Australian people, without asking their permission…….If our Constitution is to be altered, it must be by the decision of the Australian people, voting in a referendum, but that is not the way the Government sees it…….if it wants to override a state, it looks around for the appropriate UN convention…….such decisions do not have to be approved by Parliament. They do not have to be part of election policies, and they have not been.”
United Nations has all the rights while Australians have none, as our own politicians destroy democracy by preventing participation in democratic elections by removing our right to have an informed vote
We have seen that successive governments quite unashamedly admit they have been using UN agreements to bypass the will of the Australian people, subvert the Constitution, and undermine sovereignty. We have also seen that successive governments have deliberately deceived the Australian people for decades about the enforceability of the provisions of UN agreements in Australia. And although ‘voluntary’ or ‘soft-law’ UN agreements are deliberately utilised as a first step towards binding global laws, especially when gradualism is preferred for the legislating of more controversial initiatives, successive governments failed to tell the truth about this also, again preventing Australians from having an informed democratic vote.
The right to vote in free and democratic elections is a fundamental human right, but this right is totally dependent upon two other rights, namely, the right to be correctly and fully informed, and the right to make a genuine choice ( 86, 87, 88, 89). If voters are misled or misinformed they cannot make a genuine choice and cannot participate in a democratic election. The same is true if there is no policy choice, whether because of party collusion or a single party state. These are the fundamental foundations of any sustainable genuine democracy. Dictators and despots around the world consistently violate both these rights to prevent democratic choice and trash the human rights of their citizens. As points out in “When Ignorance isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy”:
“Democracy demands an informed electorate…….Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may be manipulated by elites. They may also demand policies that contravene their own interests…….voter ignorance imperils the instrumental case for democracy as a regime that serves the interests of the majority, since ignorance potentially opens the door for both elite manipulation of the public”
Similarly, the Electoral Regulation Research Network, in a report entitled “The Challenge of Informed Voting in the 21st Century”, cites a statement from Isaacs J in Smith/v/Oldham, a case in the High Court of Australia:
“The vote of every elector is a matter of concern to the whole Commonwealth, and all are interested in endeavouring to secure not merely that the vote shall be formally recorded in accordance with the opinion which the voter actually holds, free from intimidation, coercion and bribery, but that the voter shall not be led by misrepresentation or concealment of any material circumstance into forming and consequently registering a political judgment different from that which he would have formed and registered had he known the real circumstances.”
Like common dictators around the world, successive Australian governments, and State governments, have been trashing these fundamental human rights of Australian citizens for decades.
Global scammers, the UN & politicians – making a career out of deception, & destroying democracy
With politicians clearly dedicated to spin and deceit, political misinformation and voter ignorance are a huge problem since, as Somin points out, “What the voters don’t know about, they can’t meaningfully control.” There is no better example of an enduring undemocratic campaign of deliberate misinformation than the United Nations sustainable development agenda, firstly the Agenda 21 program, and subsequently, the 2030 Agenda ( 90, 92, 93, 94,959697). In 1992 we were told by the UN that Agenda 21 was a ‘non-binding’ ‘consensus’ document, but by 1997 the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was seemingly in a panic:
“Failure to act now to implement Agenda 21 could damage the planet irreversibly, unleashing a spiral of increased hunger, deprivation, disease and squalor….. Stressing that Agenda 21 was unprecedented, he said Member States must act in ‘unprecedented ways to implement it’.”
Deceit regarding the UN sustainability agenda has always been deliberate and institutionalised, with the UN advising governments that although their agenda must be enforced, the following methods should be utilised to ensure voters are prevented from exercising any democratic choice (94,98, 99, 100, 101:
1. Political bipartisanship and consensus for major policies. Notable Australian examples where our politicians decided to remove democratic choice include; globalisation, foreign investment, sale of vital assets & global wealth redistribution, multiculturalism, council & indigenous Constitutional recognition, multilateralism, & UN agreements such as Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda etc.) (102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 ).
2. The use of cross party groups to breakdown party differences.
3. Implementing and embedding at an executive or bureaucratic level beyond democratic scrutiny resulting in a “continuous” policy beyond party politics.
4. the use of local councils to avoid national constitutional limitations (“Implementation of the SDGs is not something to be imposed on people by national institutions”.
Should our democracy and freedoms be sacrificed so that laws can be made for us by the United Nations, & by the authoritarian and Islamic countries which comprise the UN? While the South African Constitution has been amended to ensure international laws and agreements are automatically subordinate to the, our globalist politicians prefer Australian laws to be subordinate to the UN.