TROM "is a project that aims to showcase in detail the root cause of most of today’s problems and proposes realistic solutions to solve those problems. But it is also about challenging people’s values, explaining in simple language how the world works, and providing free and good quality educational materials/tools for everyone."
I support TROM on Patreon because I like what they have to say about the human condition and society. They use good science and logic and, to me, they make a lot of sense. They are aligned with the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project , whose philosophy and work I also respect.
The Human Rights Commission's (HRC) Disability Commissioner, Paul Gibson, replied to me today regarding Immigration NZ (INZ) and its discriminatory stance against migrants with unique function/disability/access needs. He said the HRC is concerned about the stories it is hearing and is aware that the actions of INZ contravene United Nations' principles. (Refer to my previous posts here and here.)
In the HRC's monitoring of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which it does as part of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism (IMM) along with the Ombudsman and the Convention Coalition of Disabled People’s Organisations, he said, "we haven't given much attention to date to article 18 on freedom of movement and nationality, which specifically mentions immigration. We will be mentioning it to our IMM partners when we meet next week, and to the Office of Disability issues and Minister of Disability Issues in upcoming meetings."
The Disability Commissioner was away sick last week but yesterday I received the following reply to my letter from the Human Rights Commission's Senior Legal Advisor:
"Unfortunately, section 392 of the Immigration Act restricts the ability of the Human Rights Commission to get involved in certain immigration-related matters and specifically precludes the consideration of complaints about content or application of immigration decisions and instructions. I have copied this section of the Immigration Act below for your reference.
Last Sunday I emailed Paul Gibson, Disability Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission about two recent cases of disability-related discrimination by Immigration New Zealand. I've had no reply so I thought I'd make it an open letter. Please feel free to use this as a template to also email Paul — firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm cheerily watching the newly resurrected Back Benches on iSky — Wallace, Damien, I missed you guys — and I'm staggered that the two women on the panel — Tracey Martin, NZ First and Louise Upston, National — are opposed to marriage equality. The two blokes — Trevor Mallard, Labour and Peter Dunne, United Future — are fine with it.
Martin holds fast to her party line that the issue should go to referendum. But Upston wades into a quagmire of discrimination, implying that marriage equality somehow breaches the rights of children because it will change adoption laws.
In this video, Charles Eisenstein talks about life beyond money...
Visit Charles' website...
The Oxford Dictionary defines capitalism as "an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Capital is "wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization..."
Now consider the meaning of sexism — "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex" — and racism — "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races," or "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior."
The current Ministry of Health Consultation on Paying Family Carers to Provide Disability Support 2012 considers "options for paying family carers providing disability support to disabled adult family members" (my emphasis).
I am concerned that this seems to exclude family carers providing disability support to disabled children.
I believe the omission of the needs of children, under current policy and in this consultation, is negligent for the following reasons:
The Ministry of Health has released the following consultation invitation about paying family members. Personally I think the "complexity", of which the notice speaks, is overstated (read my recent post). You'll also notice it refers only to the support of disabled adults, but not children.
If this affects you, or you are simply concerned, I encourage you to have your say, dispelling the complexity myth and adding the right of disabled to children to be supported by well-resourced parents.
Since the Government accepted the Court of Appeal ruling that their policy to not pay family members to support disabled relatives was, in fact, discriminatory under the Human Rights Act, an advisory group has been set up to work out how much to pay them.
I wonder how much taxpayers' money that will cost.
Were bureaucrats and politicians to act in a sensible and pragmatic manner, they would use the 80-20 rule. Wikipedia explains that "the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes."