Clarifying and upholding human rights is a fundamental duty of states and citizens.

The dignity of humanity is linked to each individual's rights to self-determination and cannot be violated by the state, the employer or any other dominant power. Though individual, rights are interactive and must take into account the rights of others; it is very dangerous, however, to suppress them, even temporarily, for the sake of security or some other expediency.

Rights are not static and they develop in line with progress. Primarily, they represent what is accessible to an individual, when unobstructed. However, society has increased what can be attainable, through government, cooperation and taxation, for instance. So, free health care or education, for example, could be considered human rights in those countries where these could be provided with relative ease. Protecting the former category of rights and developing and providing the latter, incurs an expense. 

National budgets may not have the resources to protect and provide for the rights of people beyond their borders, or to outsiders entering them. This creates a bizarre anomaly, whereby human rights are no longer human rights, but national rights. This can result in a situation where the primary rights of individuals are disregarded for the sake of secondary rights of citizens. Thus, people may be prepared to let refugees or migrants die, if helping them would jeopardise their own exclusive rights to free public transport or university. Upholding human rights, therefore, involves acknowledging the universality of primary rights and working towards the transnational standardisation and availability of all other rights.

The political party will commit to:

  • Monitoring the safeguarding of human rights, particularly essential ones like safety and health, as well as those that have been historically suppressed because of religious or cultural bias, such as those related to race, gender and sexual orientation.
  • Involving citizens in the decision-making process with regards to their priorities, so that tax revenues will be spent according to the wishes of those who are contributing to them. With the technology that is now available, this should not be difficult.
  • Working towards a federal alliance of nations so that human rights can cover all humanity and not the privileged alone.
  • Finding ways of supporting global human rights even when constrained by national borders.

Borders should not deprive people of the right to free movement.

If we cage the world around us, the truth is that it is we who are in the cage.

 Currently, most of the borders of the 21st Century are of this mould; they are like rigid bars that mostly aim to keep “foreigners” from settling where they wish. Territory is not property and people should therefore be at liberty to flow freely. The European Union has set a good example regarding the abolition of borders, although the scenario was one of fairly similar, affluent and peaceful nations. Citizens from countries that are more troubled, therefore, will require more stringent procedures, since the flow of people will not always be reciprocal and could also consist of asylum seekers and refugees attempting to flood into more stable countries, which could cause difficulties, if not managed properly. Whatever processes are put in place, they must always reflect the fact that freedom of movement is a human right.

The political party will commit to:

  • Abolishing borders between UN-aligned member states, following a similar pattern to the European Union, while working to improve it
  • Negotiating reciprocal, long-term tourist and work visas with individual non-UN-aligned states, in order to allow free movement in both directions with fewer restrictions
  • Ensuring consular personnel are trained and equipped to deal with visa requests from people wishing to emigrate to their country, in the most respectful and efficient way possible.

Governments have the responsibility to support the resettlement and when appropriate, the repatriation of refugees.

Refugees often find themselves in a double prison: with bars on the inside and outside.

Countries are not open prisons; hence people should not be forcibly confined within their borders. Oppressive regimes, always closed to the international principles of decency and cooperation, are generally to blame for citizens wishing to flee or abandon their countries in droves. Often these people find themselves in a double prison: with bars on the inside and bars on the outside. Having escaped the former, they should not be impaled by the latter. 

Support should be given to refugees in centres as close to their place of origin as possible. The more effective these centres become in terms of reallocating refugees, the more, perhaps, every sort of migrant will try to exploit their services. The latter should not be demonised for wishing to seek better opportunities in more affluent countries, although priority should be given to genuine refugees, fleeing danger and deprivation. Other migrants, should therefore seek assistance from national embassies within their own countries, which should be equipped to deal with these requests.

The political party will commit to:

  • Working, both internationally and bilaterally, to resolving the problems responsible for the exodus of people from their countries, be they economic, political or environmental
  • Cooperating internationally towards the eradication of exploitative migrant routes, replacing them with safe and dignified support centres as close to the place of origin as possible, which will assist in the reallocation of refugees within reasonable timeframes
  • Allocating quotas and resources in order to be able to meet the nation’s responsibilities towards refugees in the fairest and most feasible and effective way possible
  • Ensuring refugees permitted to enter their country are assisted to integrate and find meaningful employment so that they can be self-sufficient
  • Supporting people to repatriate, if they wish to do so, when conditions within their own country have improved
  • Legislating so that refugees breaking the law or undermining the values of the host nation will be repatriated as soon as possible.

War must be criminal offence.

Countries can no longer be allowed to use the term ‘soldier’ or ‘patriot’ to justify the deployment of people to commit crimes.

War is an unacceptable way of resolving differences, or crimes committed by one country against another. It should not be glorified with epithets like ‘just’ or ‘holy’; nor should it be legitimised with conventions aiming at damage limitation. 

Differences between nations need to be arbitrated in accordance with international law, just as personal or municipal conflict is now subject to national laws. Crimes committed by one nation against another should therefore be dealt with by international law enforcement officers or police. Combatants on the side of the aggressor will be criminals. Until the international order will have the means to deal with aggression according to established laws, nations will probably have to defend themselves as far as it is possible for them to do so. This perpetrates the scenario where countries compete against each other for stockpiles of weapons. It is therefore imperative that the international order, with a force capable of deterring aggression within law enforcement perimeters, be set up as soon as possible. Also, since we have no guarantees against extra-terrestrial attacks or potentially destructive phenomena, defence and research in these areas must be ongoing, though not to the detriment of more immediate issues.

The political party will commit to:

  • Updating and refining the Kellogg-Briand pact that made war illegal
  • Working towards the creation of an international police force to protect nations from hostile acts emanating from rogue nations
  • Restructuring, redefining and developing the nation’s defence force
  • Promoting, supporting and developing the functions of the International Criminal Court

Religion cannot be used to promote violence, bigotry and intolerance.

Many religions developed in the milieu of violence and intolerance and most have not rid themselves entirely from the anomalies of this historical context. All too often religious leaders are silent regarding the atrocities or prejudice committed in the name of their religion, but even more sinister is the fact that some actually advocate hatred and its ramifications. Promoting injustice towards people or animals is unacceptable and religious leaders of this mould should not be recognised as legitimate religious representatives.

Religious leaders have a duty to promote harmony, if they do not, then they are fakes and should be dealt with according to hate laws, since religion cannot be above ethical conduct.

The political party will commit to:

  • Combating indoctrination through primary and secondary education, as well as through appropriate support and information services
  • Highlighting religious doctrines or attitudes that contravene human or animal rights and ensuring laws are robust enough to deal with these abuses.