We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

23 July 2021

The ICCPR is a multilateral treaty that was adopted on the 16th December 1966 by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) and came into force on the 23rd March 1976. The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and according to Wikipedia, as of September 2019 “the Covenant has 173 parties and six more signatories without ratification”.

Unsurprisingly China and Cuba are “notable holdouts”, also according to Wikipedia. The ICCPR is allegedly monitored by the UN Human Rights Committee, who request reports from States usually every four years to presumably check if those States have been naughty or nice to their populations. While it seems rather obvious that this token gesture is less than impactful in tackling human rights abuses by Governments around the world, there are some important aspects to this Covenant that the UK amongst most other countries are a party to, and are supposed to uphold.

Much of the detail in these kinds of Rights declarations and covenants are based on the outcome of what is known as the Nuremberg trials, the series of war crimes trials led by the USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union (hmmm) that was to hold Nazi party members responsible for their actions. Out of that came a Memorandum, that became a Kodex that after some years of arguing over who wrote it, became the Nuremberg Code. There are ten points to the Nuremberg Code that relate to “Permissible Medical Experiments” and they are:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Obviously we are seeing breaches of almost every single point with the COVID gene therapy experimental injections being pushed by Governments acting like crack dealers with the ability to create laws to enforce their “pushing”, but the problem is the the Nuremberg Code hasn’t been accepted as law by any State, or official ethics guides for any Association.

The Kodex did however have a huge influence on the idea of global human rights, and the right to informed consent became part of various formal regulations such as the US Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46, and also the ICCPR (the Covenant that is the title of this article). Some of the more relevant parts of the ICCPR are:

Article 1, Paragraph 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4, Paragraph 1: In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

Article 4, Paragraph 2: No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

Article 7: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 18, Paragraph 2: No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The important takeaways from the above are:

  1. Coercion to impair freedom of choice is expressly forbidden, and cannot be overridden even in times of “public emergency”. The preventing people from travelling or entering certain buildings without masks or experimental injections is a form of coercion, and even if this was a real pandemic this is forbidden.
  2. Non-consensual medical or scientific experimentation (the COVID injections are still in phase 3 trials and not fully licensed for use, only “emergency use”) is forbidden and again, no exceptions are allowed, not even for “public emergencies”.
  3. Discrimination on the basis of an opinion is forbidden.

The UN is seeking to be the One World Government, and is ultimately behind much of what is going on right now. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is a child organisation of the UN, as is the IMF and World Bank. They cannot and should not be trusted, but it is noteworthy that they have rules and allegedly enforceable international laws against what’s going on right now.

Whether there is any mileage in pursuing these as a line of defence against the crimes against humanity being committed daily now is another matter.