I have been avoiding beginning my response to the new book by Judy McGregor, Sylvia Bell and Margaret Wilson called Human Rights in New Zealand – Emerging Faultlines. One of the hurdles was their book structure included in each chapter, the involvement of ‘Civil Society’.
I do not believe we have a civil society after the years of discrimination and failure of the Word of Law I have experienced. So my first chapter will be dedicated to establishing what a Civil Society is and prove New Zealand is no longer operating in one.
It has also been necessary to start this at my local library on my website because my home computer no longer operates without an electrical cord and I become so traumatised and unwell when alone at home doing this it isn’t safe. Being around people helps, even if they do not know what I am doing – although it does make me feel further alienated, marginalised and isolated at the same time.
You have to go to Wikipedia of course when you are looking for definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society I was drawn to the root of the phrase – the Etymology
The term civil society goes back to Aristotle‘s phrase koinōnía politikḗ (κοινωνία πολιτική), occurring in his Politics, where it refers to a ‘community’, commensurate with the Greek city-state (polis) characterized by a shared set of norms and ethos, in which free citizens on an equal footing lived under the rule of law. The telos or end of civil society, thus defined, was common wellbeing (τὸ εὖ ζῆν tò eu zēn), in as man was defined as a ‘political (social) animal’ (ζῷον πολιτικόν zōon politikón). Though the concept was mentioned in Roman writers, such as Cicero, it entered into Western political discourse following the translation of Aristotle’s works into Latin (societas civilis) by late medieval and early Renaissance writers such as William of Moerbeke and Leonardo Bruni, where it often referred to the ancient notion of a republic (res publica). With the rise of a distinction between monarchical autonomy and public law, the term then gained currency to denote the corporate estates (Ständestaat) of a feudal elite of land-holders as opposed to the powers exercised by the prince. It had a long history in state theory, and was revived with particular force in recent times, in Eastern Europe, where dissidents such as Václav Havel employed it to denote the sphere of civic associations threatened by the intrusive holistic state-dominated regimes of Communist Eastern Europe.
I am also drawn to the United Nations declarations on human disabled civil economic political etc rights, along with agreements about torture etc. Their booklet on Civil Society and the role of Civil Society Actors has become important in establishing this definition. I suppose it is particularly important when dealing with the violence issues I do as an activist in the area of mental health care for mentally injured abuse victims. As expressions of violence have become so abhorant to our entire society at the same time as we create an environment that drives many traumatised people to violence. It appears from my extensive study and observations violent people are the new JEW when comparing to the rise of the NAZIs and the resulting emergence of the United Nations as a vehicle of preventing violence and keeping the peace.
I have noted that no organisation government or non-government in fact advocate for or represent mentally injured or ill people who have violence as an impairment related to their disability. Organisations related to mental health do not want to be associated with people who become violent as a result of their disorders. I have heard it myself at a mental health art facility in Lower Hutt where it was expressed how many more violent and dangerous people attended the art workshop in Upper Hutt – that the people in Lower Hutt weren’t like that.
The most definitive proof of course are the numbers of mentally ill people in or going through our justice and prison system for violence offences. It is estimated 70% of prison inmates have mental health issues and the majority of these have histories of their own abuse.
I myself have violence issues, uncontrollable rage that I manage by turning the violence on myself and vent verbally at those who are supposed to protect and care for me. Not that I threaten them with harm myself, but I pass it over to spirit and tell them that they are going to get the violent karma they deserve with the passive/aggressive and physical violence they perpetrate against 10,000s of abused and traumatised mentally injured men women and children. Because the government and people in the VIOLENCE/ABUSE INDUSTRY are now so corrupted/uncivilized they currently have me in court for Misuse of a Telephone for expressing my rage, hatred and desire for karma against ACC – the agency most responsible for my worsening mental health, poverty, unemployment etc.
Thankfully I have a senior psychiatrist I was allowed to see last year who understands what is happening to me and can express this as a mental health issue – not dissimilar to tourettes. As I tick in times of severe stress and have other attributes of tourettes it is related in some way to this disorder – plus when I am ‘venting’ there is no way of stopping it, until it has run its course. His testimony, along with Bill of Rights defence should get me acquitted of this charge and police deterred from attempting this sort of prosecution again.