UK Human Rights Act Reform Bill 2022 Public Consultation. An Open Letter Response.

1. Does the UK Government fully acknowledge its obligation to adhere to all International Human Rights Laws?

2. Is domestic ‘revision’ of International Human Rights Law racist or simply Statist?

3. Human Rights are the only global issue on which the UK Government seeks to displace or amend global laws, legislation, treaties, conventions or codes.

4. Civil rights are not Human Rights.

5. Human Rights vs “the wider public interest” (aims of the State).

6. Those who are accused by millions, of Human Rights violations, can obviously not legitimately oversee any Human Rights ‘revision’ or ‘improvement’.

What are “Human Rights Laws”?

For the purposes of clarity, “International Human Rights Laws” refer to any UN and UNESCO declarations, treaties and codes containing the words ‘Human Rights’ in their title.

NB. The following document contains purposefully repeated text throughout.

Larger text insertions are purposefully repeated from the general smaller text, in order to emphasise key points and to assist in scan reading. If you are methodically reading through the document, you may ignore all larger text insertions. 

Any State that does not unequivocally and consistently illustrate that it places the rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every individual – equally, above the agendas and policies of the State and its corporate partners, spits directly in the faces of all those throughout history who have suffered and died under the anti-human actions of the State or other institutions, including of course, under nazism and communism.

International Human Rights Laws are either sacrosanct or they are optional – which is it?

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) contains in its title the word ‘Universal’ as a statement of the universal acceptance and acknowledgement by all member (non-rogue) States of the world to adhere to it.

To my knowledge, the UK Government, or anyone within it, has never once claimed that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is not legitimate, or not fully accepted in its entirety as a legally binding document by the British State.

I therefore find it impossible to understand how any government, which has ratified the legitimacy of International Human Rights, has any legal or rational basis for constructing any supplementary domestic, so-called ‘Human Rights’ legislation, which does not first, and above all, unequivocally acknowledge the superlative standing of such international Human Rights Laws, along with acknowledging that State’s complete and unadulterated legal obligations to all such ‘International Human Rights Laws’. To not do this is to declare through that State’s actions or inactions that it no longer accepts International Human Rights – including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) – to be either fit for purpose or to be adhered to by itself or the populace it politically represents.

In short, either the UK Government fully acknowledges its total adherence to all international Human Rights Laws, under all circumstances and above all  domestic legislative, judicial and executive powers (a.k.a. ‘universally’), or it declares itself to no longer be subject to international Human Rights Laws – such laws demanding a total adherence, not selective adherence.

It really is that simple. The UK Government has released a 123 page consultation document without first acknowledging its total and utter deference and legal obligation to all existing International Human Rights Laws. In doing so, the UK Government, the UK civil service, and every individual involved in the proposal to compromise or subvert, in any way, shape or form, the protections to the individual afforded by International Human Rights, has placed themselves within the bracket of a pariah State or ‘criminal against humanity’, in respect to such ‘Universal’ Human Rights.

Indeed, in not unmistakably confirming the absolute superlative status of International Human Rights over all domestic legislation and State authority, the UK Government has turned its back on those who International Human Rights were designed to protect – each and every sovereign human being – in direct response to the State’s and its partner corporations’ violations of such inalienable rights, leading up to and during the Second World War. All totalitarian ideologies of that time, both on the so-called left and the right, were guilty of placing the State’s aims and objectives above the basic rights of the sovereign human being, such rights being very clearly expressed within the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and in subsequent International Human Rights Laws.

Any State that does not unequivocally and consistently illustrate that it places the rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every individual – equally, above the agendas and policies of the State and its corporate partners, spits directly in the faces of all those throughout history who have suffered and died under the anti-human actions of the State or other institutions, including of course, under nazism and communism. Is the UK Government such a pariah State, or does it morally, lawfully and legally submit to its absolute obligation to fully adhere to the fundamental rights of the sovereign individual, as defined under International Human Rights Laws?

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is rightly regarded as the cap stone of International Human Rights Law, and so, all other Human Rights Declarations, Conventions, Codes and Treaties naturally defer to this foundational piece of global legislation.

Should we not have the UK Geneva Convention Act to parallel exactly the same ‘improvements’ that are made to International Human Rights Laws by domestic legislation? After all, shouldn’t the State also have certain rights to do as it pleases to soldiers and civilians in war, under certain ’emergency’ situations? Are politicians such military fanatics that they believe that the individual must have absolute fundamental rights in war, but they should not have them in peace?

With that in mind, how would the UK Government and UK politicians feel about ‘revising’ the Geneva Convention to be more suited to the British nation and British people? Should we not have the UK Geneva Convention Act to parallel exactly the same ‘improvements’ that are made to International Human Rights Laws by domestic legislation? After all, shouldn’t the State also have certain rights to do as it pleases to soldiers and civilians in war, under certain ’emergency’ situations? Are politicians such military fanatics that they believe that the individual must have absolute fundamental rights in war, but they should not have them in peace?

Why should the UK Government allow the Geneva Convention to apply equally to every individual of the world? If any politician or member of the civil service believes that they have a good answer to that question, then let them also apply it to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), and any other internationally ratified Human Rights Law!

We can only pray that the military fanatics of the State might begin to make the better choice of becoming such fans of humanity as a whole.

2. Is domestic ‘revision’ of International Human Rights Law racist or simply Statist?

By legislating ‘alternative’ Human Rights for the people of Britain, the UK State is declaring, by default, that it rejects the very first line of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 1), that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

What is it that the UK Government believes sets the people of Britain and the British State outside of the ‘universality’ of International Human Rights? Any domestic variation on Human Rights is clearly oxymoronic, because the basis of Human Rights is that they regard each and every human being on the planet as being immutably equal, in regards to their basic, fundamental rights of self-autonomy and peaceful liberty within society.

Why does the UK Government believe that the British somehow exist outside of this equal sovereign status, which International Human Rights applies to each and every individual throughout the world? There are two possible options. Either the UK government believes in a version of ‘American exceptionalism’ for the British people, whereby they deserve MORE rights than stated within the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or alternatively, the UK Government believes that the people of Britain deserve LESS rights than stated in that ‘Universal’ Declaration. Which is it?

By legislating ‘alternative’ Human Rights for the people of Britain, the UK State is declaring, by default, that it rejects the very first line of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 1), that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

If the UK State wishes to continue to legislate its own domestic version of ‘Human Rights’, then it must first answer the question – does it accept or deny the understanding clearly laid down by the global community in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that, “All human beings are equal in rights.” Yes or no?

To not clearly answer this question for the world to hear is to act in just such a way as those infamous totalitarian States did prior to 1948 – actions against the individual sovereignty of the human being that directly led to the Nuremberg trials, the Nuremberg Code (1947), and the formation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which was of course, unanimously endorsed by the global community – both politicians and public alike.

Has the UK Government forgotten every crime against humanity that led to the need for ‘universal’ Human Rights? Human Rights that can ONLY ever be global, not domestic, because that is the whole point. Human Rights are unalienable; they cannot be prejudicially applied to one person or another, and therefore can obviously also never be applied to any group identity.

It is the individual as a sovereign being, and no other, to which International Human Rights apply in their entirety. As Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) makes abundantly clear, we “are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Nobody is born to greater or lesser rights than any other.

Human Rights can ONLY ever be applicable if they apply to every single human being on the planet. To not do so makes them ‘tribal’ rights, not Human Rights. Does UK legislation apply to every human being on the planet? Of course not. Will UK Human Rights legislation be globally ratified? Of course not.

Human Rights can ONLY ever be applicable if they apply to every single human being on the planet. To not do so makes them ‘tribal’ rights, not Human Rights. Does UK legislation apply to every human being on the planet? Of course not. Will UK Human Rights legislation be globally ratified? Of course not. For such domestic legislation to have ever been even considered, surely illustrates the very low level of critical thought that British politicians now possess. There is no fool quite like a political fool!

Human Rights deal completely and utterly with the rights of the sovereign individual, and thereby, to suppose that a nation should differ in its perception of Human Rights, in any way, from the basic fundamental understanding expressed within the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), is to declare that members of that nation are somehow different from every other human being who exists outside of that country’s borders. Whichever way you look at that scenario, the racist undertones are very clear. Either the State regards the population under its care to be superior in some way, or to be inferior in some way, by being ‘lesser’ than those who actually control the State, and construct the legislation. After all, those in charge of a State, do not necessarily regard themselves in terms of social status and power, or racially, religiously, culturally, ideologically, genetically, or even geographically, as the same as the general populace, or at least certain sectors of the populace.

By attempting to limit in any way whatsoever through domestic legislation, the full and unadulterated Human Rights provided by International Human Rights Laws to every single individual on the planet, with prejudice, discrimination or favour, the State is declaring war on EVERY individual on the planet.

“All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”
Article 7, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

As Article 7 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states, in regards to each and every individual on earth, with no regard to national borders or domestic legislation, “All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.“

Even any suggestion to construct domestic legislation on Human Rights that does not unequivocally first completely defer to International Human Rights Laws as being wholly superlative, is by default, “discriminating” against every individual within that nation, “in violation of [the] Declaration”.

Therefore, under Article 7, the people of Britain can demand legal protection under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) from any attempt by the UK Government to legislate that anyone under British legal jurisdiction does not retain 100% of the protections provided to every human being in the world, equally, under International Human Rights Laws, for by doing so, the UK State will quite clearly be undertaking a “discrimination in violation of [the] Declaration” or at least causing “incitement to such discrimination.” It cannot morally, lawfully or legally do that.

Do those within the UK government regard the British population as millions of individual sovereign human beings who possess equal rights, as clearly and repeatedly expressed within International Human Rights Law, or do they simply perceive the populace as an analogous, collective group that is subservient to the State? If the latter is the case, that perception of people obviously has no relation whatsoever to Human Rights, and is in fact in automatic breach of the fundamental and accepted understanding that underpins all Human Rights Laws.

Do those in government see themselves as somehow socially separated from the general public, and thereby not bound as fellow members of humanity by the moral, lawful, and legal obligations to adhere to ‘universally’ acknowledged International Human Rights Laws, which have remained globally unchallenged and revered for 75 years?

Who serves who? Does the State serve the people, or do the people serve the State? Are International Human Rights perceived as a social necessity and blessing by British politicians who serve the people, or are International Human Rights simply seen as an obstacle to State control, which must be overcome by politicians who actually serve the State and its corporate partners?

Who serves who? Does the State serve the people, or do the people serve the State? Are International Human Rights perceived as a social necessity and blessing by British politicians who serve the people, or are International Human Rights simply seen as an obstacle to State control, which must be overcome by politicians who actually serve the State and its corporate partners?

3. Human Rights are the only global issue on which the UK Government seeks to displace or amend global laws, legislation, treaties, conventions or codes.

During the two years of COVID debacle, the UK Government has dutifully followed the will and instructions of unelected global (globalist) institutions such as the WEF, the WHO, and the pharmaceutical industry, and unelected technocrats and scientists linked to and funded by (personally or via their educational or professional situations) globalist institutions such as the Gates Foundation.

If globalism were simply a business-orientated force, then it should be treated just like any other lobby group. However, it is clearly a highly coordinated and inflexible political force, with a consistent agenda that diametrically opposes the security and prosperity of the nation State. Globalism can thereby only be regarded as a ‘foreign power’, and must be treated as such by those in public office, in respect to its influence on British politicians and the media, and any potential threats it may pose to Britain’s national security.

These corporate bodies are not only unelected, undemocratic entities, but they also all possess uniform political ideologies, in regards to specific aims and agendas, some of which are publicly promoted, and some of which are systematically omitted from any mainstream media coverage. If globalism were simply a business-orientated force, then it should be treated just like any other lobby group. However, it is clearly a highly coordinated and inflexible political force, with a consistent agenda that diametrically opposes the security and prosperity of the nation State. Globalism can thereby only be regarded as a ‘foreign power’, and must be treated as such by those in public office, in respect to its influence on British politicians and the media, and any potential threats it may pose to Britain’s national security, including food security, economic security, and above all, the security of Human Rights and all associated freedoms and liberties.

Throughout 2020 and 2021, the UK Government adhered in full to the advice (instructions) given to it by ‘technocratic’ individuals and institutions, which all – either openly or via their words and actions – directly echoed the wishes of the undemocratic globalist hierarchy (a foreign power), which falsely paraded as the ‘international community’ with the full backing of the United Nations.

However, during this same time, internationally ratified Human Rights Laws (UN, UNESCO declarations and treaties containing the words ‘Human Rights’ in the title) have been systematically and totally ignored by every facet of the UK Government and State.

When it comes to UK parliamentary legislation, why is it that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is not good enough for the British people, and yet global treaties on trade or the economy cannot under any circumstances be outranked by any UK made legislation? Perhaps the problem is that we consistently have so many politicians in key ministerial positions and civil service posts who come straight into politics from international banking.

So what we clearly see is the British political establishment accepting its absolute subservience to every internationally signed political and economic treaty, convention and code, and yet when it comes to international Human Rights Law, that same establishment feels it must devote political time and public money to ‘improving’ (undermining) internationally signed conventions, treaties and codes, such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights (1948) and the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005). How can this possibly be legitimate in any way, shape or form?

It is not debatable to the average voter that their Human Rights supersede their economic rights. Is Britain not a democracy? Therefore, if the British State declares that international laws regarding Human Rights are no longer sacrosanct, then by default, all other international laws etc are far less so. Therefore, what the UK Government is saying, by default, is that as a nation we may also now ignore, and subvert with domestic legislation, any international laws, treaties, conventions and codes that we previously ratified, yes?

Would the UK Government clearly explain why they remain so bound by international trade agreements etc, if they are not bound in exactly the same way by International Human Rights Laws?

The precedent has already been established with the UK Human Rights Act 1998, and any further attempt to subvert or diminish internationally ratified Human Rights Laws, will simply establish an even greater precedent for the UK to now throw away any International trade agreements or other such conventions, codes or treaties that it decides are no longer ‘good enough’ for the people of Britain. Is that not clearly the case, or am I missing something? If so, would the UK Government clearly explain why they remain so bound by international trade agreements etc, if they are not bound in exactly the same way by International Human Rights Laws?

It is not a question of whether, or how, the UK’s Human Right Act (1998) should be reformed, but instead how the very existence of any such domestic Act of parliament (which does anything other than to simply re-affirm existing international Human Rights legislation), illustrates Britain’s apparent legal capacity to ignore any and all international laws, treaties and conventions. No national governing body can have it both ways, and still be regarded as a legitimate legal authority by the people.

4. Civil rights are not Human Rights.

The propagandised media is blatantly focused towards promoting ‘identity politics’, rather than promoting the fundamental rights of the individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour.

For every time that you hear the term ‘Human Rights’ mentioned on the news, in the political sphere, or in the media, you are likely to hear the term ‘civil rights’ mentioned 100 times. The term ‘Human Rights’ is almost always used in its correct context, in reference to the rights of the individual, but the term ‘civil rights’ has increasingly been mis-used in reference to the individual, as well as being correctly used in relation to ‘group identity’. The disparity in the promotion and use of the these two distinctly opposing terms, illustrates that the propagandised media is blatantly focused towards promoting ‘identity politics’, rather than promoting the fundamental rights of the individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour.

Once a person has come to understand the clear and distinct difference between Human Rights and civil rights, it comes as quite a shock to realise just how many people have never even considered that a difference between them exists. Indeed, on inspection, most people appear to falsely believe that they mean the same thing. This is a sad indictment of the low level of understanding that the general populace have in regards to their Human Rights, but it is not as worrying as the fact that most politicians appear to have no more comprehension on the matter than the people they are supposed to be professionally representing on the political stage.

Transgender rights are civil rights, and pertain to a ‘group identity’, rather than aligning with the fundamental understanding of Human Rights, that any transgender individual possesses no more and no less Human Rights than any other individual within the human race.

In 2021, I wrote to my MP, Luke Pollard, about the issue of Human Rights. In his response, he wrote,

“I would like to clearly confirm that I am an advocate for human rights and have repeatedly stood up against particular human rights abuses, from lobbying the Foreign Secretary about human rights violations in Sudan to championing the rights of transgender people by pushing for the Gender Recognition Act to be updated with self-declaration.

Rest assured that I will continue to stand up for human rights both in the UK and internationally.”

Mr Pollard clearly believes that ‘transgender rights’ are Human Rights, which of course, is not the case. They are civil rights, and pertain to a ‘group identity’, rather than aligning with the fundamental understanding of Human Rights, that any transgender individual possesses no more and no less Human Rights than any other individual within the human race.

If Luke Pollard is a “champion of the rights of transgender people”, as relating to ‘group identity’ rights (a.k.a ‘civil rights’), which potentially provide rights above or beyond the legal principle of Human Rights – that each and every individual possesses exactly the same fundamental rights, in any situation, under any circumstances, without prejudice, discrimination or favour – then he is actually opposing Human Rights, and thereby can in no way be an advocate for them. Again, civil rights are not Human Rights, and politicians are clearly in an urgent need for education in regards to this moral, legal and historical fact.

A key example of how civil rights directly oppose Human Rights is in the notion of ‘positive discrimination’. Too much can be said in opposition to that anti-social and anti-human policy, but quite simply, it is a clear oxymoron. International Human Rights Laws clearly state that any discrimination whatsoever against the sovereign individual’s rights is a breach of Human Rights Law, because all “are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (Article 1, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

‘Positive discrimination’, regardless of how you might wish to justify it, is – as a matter of moral, legal and rational fact – a breach of the most fundamental element of International Human Rights Law. Therefore, any politician that ever supports or condones ‘positive discrimination’ is without question breaching their constituents’ Human Rights.

Therefore, ‘positive discrimination’, regardless of how you might wish to justify it, is – as a matter of moral, legal and rational fact – a breach of the most fundamental element of International Human Rights Law. Therefore, any politician that ever supports or condones ‘positive discrimination’ is without question breaching their constituents’ Human Rights. For the ideology of ‘positive discrimination’ to be taken at all seriously by politicians illustrates just how low politics and politicians have sunk in regards to their understanding of Human Rights, since their conception just 75 years ago.

A further – and highly topical – example of the apparent ignorance of UK politicians is their lack of understanding of how the fundamental Human Rights of the sovereign individual always supersede the interests of society, as clearly laid down, both broadly and specifically, within the Preambles, Articles and Clauses of International Human Rights Law.

The last two years has shown that most politicians believe that ‘their own’ view on what the interests of society might be, or the “wider public interests” to quote the UK Government, somehow outweigh the sovereign individual’s fundamental Human Rights. In absolute context to the medical and scientific issues surrounding the last two years, the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) states that,
“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” Article 3 (2).

Any politician who has acted against the fundamental rights and freedoms of the sovereign individual, in regards to a medical or scientific issue, in favour of ‘the interests of society’, is in breach of this most recent major piece of International Human Rights Law. Those UK politicians who have not read the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) at some point over the last two years should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Any politician who has acted against the fundamental rights and freedoms of the sovereign individual, in regards to a medical or scientific issue, in favour of ‘the interests of society’, is in breach of this most recent major piece of International Human Rights Law. Those UK politicians who have not read the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) at some point over the last two years should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

It is the ‘sovereign individual’ and not the ‘group identity’ that requires protection under the law, for the sovereign individual exists within every group identity, but group identity most certainly does not exist within every individual!

I am not interested in my ‘social identity’. I am only interested in my humanity. I do not care about my civil rights or yours, because I have my Human Rights and so do you, which logically, lawfully and legally supersede in every way, any such so-called ‘civil rights’.

In other words, when you have Human Rights, you do not need civil rights, but when you have civil rights, you still need Human Rights. Quite simply, if you realise that you have Human Rights, any other kind of rights are not only irrelevant, they only serve to get in the way.

When you have Human Rights, you do not need civil rights, but when you have civil rights, you still need Human Rights. Quite simply, if you realise that you have Human Rights, any other kind of rights are not only irrelevant, they only serve to get in the way.

Indeed, through my research I have come to the conclusion that the only reasonable way to explain the legal establishing of ‘civil rights’ and also ‘political rights’, as first laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), is that they were constructed specifically in order to diminish the legal rights of the sovereign individual, in favour of the aims of the State; the corporations; and the globalist agenda to destroy the nation State and control the human populace as a subordinate, statistical group.

I will keep to the subject at hand, by simply providing the following plain evidence to show that Human Rights and civil rights are not only distinctly separate but actually diametrically opposed within international law.

As I have established, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) deals solely with the rights of the sovereign individual. The one clause that could be argued to be an exception to this rule is Article 16 (3), which states that, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

This clause is making the important statement that the natural and eternal right of two individuals to form a family, and create a further generation of individuals, free of any State interference, is in itself an essential right of the sovereign individual.

Thinking rationally, a document that wished to encapsulate every fundamental right of the sovereign individual simply had to include a clause that protected the nuclear family, as a natural extension of each sovereign individual. The family has always been regarded as an extension of the sovereign individual, and that is why those political forces that aim to destroy the sovereign individual, also always aim to destroy the family unit. The two are socially and politically almost inseparable.

Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not only establish that the family is the most fundamental group identity worthy of legal protection, but more pointedly, that it is the ONLY social group worthy of legal protection under Human Rights Law! By specifically not including in the declaration any other social group to be worthy of equal protection to that given to the sovereign individual, and yet including just one – the family – the Declaration is sending out a clear legal message that all other social group identities, right up to the State, are specifically and necessarily NOT protected by Human Rights Laws.

Furthermore, Article 16 (3) does not only establish that the family is the most fundamental group identity worthy of legal protection, but more pointedly, that it is the ONLY social group worthy of legal protection under Human Rights Law! By specifically not including in the declaration any other social group to be worthy of equal protection to that given to the sovereign individual, and yet including just one – the family – the Declaration is sending out a clear legal message that all other social group identities, right up to the State, are specifically and necessarily NOT protected by Human Rights Laws.

Grasping this purposeful exclusion of all other groups from legal protection – by citing just one for protection – is essential to fully understanding the calculated limitations of International Human Rights, in excluding any notion of such supreme rights of the individual also being given to any social group or institution. International Human Rights relate to the individual, not the group. End of story.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) uses the word “State” or “States” only 6 times, and always in a submissive context, or to establish every State’s legal obligations to the Declaration. Read these instances for yourself, as follows.

Twice in the Preamble:

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Four times in the Articles:

Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Article 16 (3): The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

In this same seminal Human Rights Declaration, the word ‘Everyone‘ is used 41 times, at least once in 33 Articles! Indeed, the seven articles that do not refer to ‘Everyone‘ simply replace this word with words and terms that mean exactly the same thing:

‘All human beings‘ (Article 1);

‘No one‘ shall be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4);

‘No one‘ shall be subjected to torture or to cruel… (Article 5);

‘All‘ are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration… (Article 7);

‘No one‘ shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. (Article 9);

‘Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion‘, have the right to marry and to found a family. (Article 16 -1);

and finally (Article 30) (shown in previous paragraph).

It is clear to anyone who reads the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that it is solely concerned with the protection and rights of each and every sovereign individual, equally, without discrimination, and under all social and political circumstances, without exception.

It is clear to anyone who reads the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) that it is solely concerned with the protection and rights of each and every sovereign individual, equally, without discrimination, and under all social and political circumstances, without exception.

Eighteen years after the UN Declaration of Human rights was established, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) was written.

This Covenant is the legal foundation of ‘civil rights’ and although it pays homage to certain key articles from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it essentially departs from the understanding that the sovereign individual is the only required beneficiary of legal rights, by introducing the notion of legal rights for the artificial, inanimate, ‘dead’ social entity, as opposed to the natural, organic, ‘live’ being, and specifically, the ‘human being’. The ‘dead’ entity or ‘corpse’, from which the word ‘corporation’ derives, and why public institutions are often called ‘bodies’, is something that is ‘imagined’ to exist rather than existing in physical terms.

Group identity is an example of this perception of something that does not actually exist in the material, other than within the perceptions of human beings. The State is another example of such a non-living body of power, or imagined entity.

The perceived, artificial, and thereby ‘unreal’ collective, in any shape or form, requires no rights of protection. Each and every ‘real’, ‘living’ human individual that makes up any such collective, already has the ultimate legal protection of Human Rights Laws – ultimate because those rights are equally given to each and every individual, without prejudice or discrimination.

The perceived, artificial, and thereby ‘unreal’ collective, in any shape or form, requires no rights of protection. Each and every ‘real’, ‘living’ human individual that makes up any such collective, already has the ultimate legal protection of Human Rights Laws – ultimate because those rights are equally given to each and every individual, without prejudice or discrimination. Therefore no rights that that could ever be provided to any amalgamation of those ‘real’ beings, re-invented as one social group or another, can ever improve on International Human Rights, which protect each individual, equally.

Identity politics fuels the infraction of our Human Rights by socially conditioning people to believe that they identify, not as a ‘real’ and sovereign human individual, but instead as an imagined element of one constructed collective or another. The manufacturing of ‘civil rights’ as a social concept, acts as a legal coat hanger for the harmful ideology of identity politics.

More importantly, any such collective rights most certainly do infringe upon them. Identity politics fuels this infraction of our Human Rights by socially conditioning people to believe that they identify, not as a ‘real’ and sovereign human individual, but instead as an imagined element of one constructed collective or another. The manufacturing of ‘civil rights’ as a social concept, acts as a legal coat hanger for the harmful ideology of identity politics. These two tokens – identity politics and civil rights – of the social ‘corpse’ (the body of the corporation or imagined entity) being applied to ‘living’ people, is quite simply anti-human, and thereby anti-Human Rights.

Once you remove just one percent of what is equal, you are left with inequality, yes? The foundation of Human Rights is simple. Each and every individual within the human race is born as a sovereign individual, and Human Rights Laws reflect a civilised society in which that sovereignty is legally protected, by providing each and every individual, equally, with exactly the same protection from persecution, harassment, discrimination, injury etc, which may be directly imposed upon them by any other individual, group of individuals, or by any human representative(s) of a group identity.

Once you remove just one percent of what is equal, you are left with inequality, yes?… By providing any rights whatsoever to an ‘imagined’ collective… the absolute equality provided by the legal protection of International Human Rights Law (that being without prejudice, discrimination or favour) suddenly no longer exists. Therefore, the ‘rights’ of any collective, by default, directly oppose and thereby breach International Human Rights Laws.

By providing any rights whatsoever to an ‘imagined’ collective or ‘corpse’ entity (such as the State) – which in turn serves to contradict, infringe or supersede, in any way whatsoever, those fundamental unalienable Human Rights of each and every individual – the absolute equality provided by the legal protection of International Human Rights Law (that being without prejudice, discrimination or favour) suddenly no longer exists. Therefore, the ‘rights’ of any collective, by default, directly oppose and thereby breach International Human Rights Laws.

Identity politics has shown itself to be a hardline ideology in both social and politics terms, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) was that ideology’s introduction of a legal foundation stone for its expansion into society.

The introduction of ‘political rights’ allows the State to begin to erode and subvert Human Rights Laws, and to alter the public’s perception of the sovereign nature of each and every human being.

‘Civil rights’ allow those who wish to bring about the destruction of nation States, and traditional human cultures, to sub-divide and falsely exaggerate existing natural human group perceptions, utilising the old Roman ‘divide and rule’ stratagem.

The introduction of ‘political rights’ allows the State to begin to erode and subvert Human Rights Laws, and to alter the public’s perception of the sovereign nature of each and every human being.

‘Civil rights’ allow those who wish to bring about the destruction of nation States, and traditional human cultures, to sub-divide and falsely exaggerate existing natural human group perceptions, utilising the old Roman ‘divide and rule’ stratagem.

Thinking rationally and with consideration for social prosperity, and in context to Human Rights, the very notion of ‘political rights’ and ‘civil rights’ are quite obviously absurd.

If you take 10 people who are taught that they each possess equal rights because they are sovereign individuals (Human Rights), and then introduce the notion to each of them that the five women in the group now possess ‘extra’ rights because they happened to be born female, what greater equality has been gained? None whatsoever. The 10 individuals who had previously understood themselves to all be equal in their fundamental rights, regardless of gender, are now divided into two groups, with each group now considering how ‘their’ rights compare with the rights of the other group. Any comparison is an obvious subversion of Human Rights, which are eternally equal under any circumstance. The introduction of ‘civil rights’ has only served to reduce the Human Rights of all 10 individuals, because they now perceive a world of groups with competing rights, rather than a world of individuals who all possess exactly the same rights.

When you consider any ‘imagined’ group (an identified social group or ‘group identity’ that exists only because people continue to believe it exists), the reality is that the group itself (the artificial entity as a whole) cannot be injured, killed, harassed, or persecuted. You can only harm the living; the being; in this case, the human being. You cannot actually harm something that is ‘dead’ or ‘imagined’.

Any belief that a conceived group entity can be actually injured, or requires legal protection from harm – in relation to the Human Rights issue – is simply and quite obviously a delusion of the negatively programmed mind. You cannot cause actual harm to a social group, because the group only exist in your mind, or the mind of others.

Any belief that a conceived group entity can be actually injured, or requires legal protection from harm – in relation to the Human Rights issue – is simply and quite obviously a delusion of the negatively programmed mind. You cannot cause actual harm to a social group, because the group only exist in your mind, or the mind of others.

However, you most certainly are able to harm the individual flesh and blood beings that are imagined to apply to that group identity. Of course, each and every one of those human beings already has – both innately and according to International Human Rights Laws – the absolute right to live in peace with all fundamental freedoms within society.

Only Human Rights are required, and only Human Rights are valid, because Human Rights respect and protect each and every individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour. It really is that simple.

Only Human Rights are required, and only Human Rights are valid, because Human Rights respect and protect each and every individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour. It really is that simple.

When you observe society today, what you see is a politically and socially divided society, because Human Rights were subverted within 20 years of their introduction by civil and political rights. It is no coincidence that the introduction of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) coincided with the start of a highly visible, antisocial breakdown at every level of society. People are now far more likely to identify as part of one ‘officially approved’ social group or another, rather than as one of 8 billion sovereign human beings, with no difference whatsoever in their rights, because they are all unique individuals with their own dreams and aspirations.

Which is the better social model? A society in which everyone is pitted against each other in a myriad of group identities, or a society in which everyone is taught to ignore class, creed, culture, race and religion, but is instead taught to universally recognise the fundamental, unalienable, sovereign rights of each and every individual?

Which is the better social model? A society in which everyone is pitted against each other in a myriad of group identities, or a society in which everyone is taught to ignore class, creed, culture, race and religion, but is instead taught to universally recognise the fundamental, unalienable, sovereign rights of each and every individual? I know which world I would rather live in, and it’s not the one I see around me today.

It is not good enough to say that human beings have always been tribal. The reasons for social division today are the same as the reasons for social division throughout history. Those in charge create the divisions. The division between races, genders, religions, nations, and cultures today are not due to any actions of the general public, but solely due to the social engineering and social conditioning of the people by the society’s ‘controllers’.

Civil rights are relentlessly promoted, and States’s rights are relentlessly increased, while the fundamental Human Rights of the sovereign individual are virtually never mentioned by politicians, not taught in schools, and are mostly suppressed by the media. That is the only evidence anyone should require to understand exactly what is to blame for the unnatural and exaggerated divisions we see in society today. The State, the corporation, and the institution are to blame. The people are not blame.

Civil rights are relentlessly promoted, and States’s rights are relentlessly increased, while the fundamental Human Rights of the sovereign individual are virtually never mentioned by politicians, not taught in schools, and are mostly suppressed by the media. That is the only evidence anyone should require to understand exactly what is to blame for the unnatural and exaggerated divisions we see in society today. The State, the corporation, and the institution are to blame. The people are not blame.

In total contrast to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), within its 53 articles, uses the word ‘State’ 105 times!

Much of the Covenant is concerned with the formation of a “Human Rights Committee”. This “Committee” is made up of “18 nationals of the State Parties to the Covenant”. In other words, individuals who are unelected by the people.

Suddenly, a governing body of elite members of international politics has been formed, in order to “submit reports on the measures that [the member States] have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized [in the Covenant] and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights.”

Even though the Covenant does not mention ‘Human Rights’ in its title, and even though the ‘Committee’ is primarily tasked with progressing a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), it is regardless, and falsely, given the name, “Human Rights Committee”.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is certainly not a blatant attempt to simply whitewash over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), but that is not how subversive politics operates. Instead, the Covenant begins to hijack the narrative by re-iterating certain key Human Rights, and then inserting an Article here, or a clause there, which introduce the idea of ‘group rights’ and ‘State’s rights’.

One obvious inclusion that has absolutely nothing to do with Human Rights is Article 24 (2), which declares that,

“Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.”

The above clause would be an unthinkable inclusion with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and even more unthinkable as an inclusion in the Nuremberg Code (1947), simply because it was the nazi State’s well-documented obsession with knowing and recording the identity of every individual, which gave them the capacity to follow the data and target certain racial groups in their experimentation and eugenics policies, such as the T4 plan, which partially succeeded in injecting to death everyone above a certain age, or considered to be ‘weak’ or ‘physically imperfect’.

Indeed, in consideration for the fundamental right to privacy of the individual, Article 12 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that,
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) in Article 26 (3), further makes its position clear on the innate autonomy of the family unit, by stating,
“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

Perhaps the most important and telling denigration of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) within the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), in regards to the Covenant’s shifting of the narrative towards group identity and away from the unalienable ‘equal’ rights of the sovereign individual, is Article 26, which states that,

“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.“

For the first time, rights were given to the individual, not equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour, due to their unalienable humanity, but instead, on grounds of them simply identifying with a certain group identity – potentially any group. What better way to cause division within society, and of course, that is exactly what we have increasingly seen, and are now beginning to witness at an incredibly destructive level within every element of society.

5. Human Rights vs “the wider public interest” (aims of the State).

“The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998… in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.”

The “wider public interest” (interests of society) is only ever determined by the State, and therefore this sentence should actually read, “to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the interests of the State.

The UK Government introduces the Human Rights Act Reform document online with the following paragraph,
“The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998. This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposals to revise the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.“

In this single sentence, the government plainly declares its ideological position to be that it believes the fundamental rights of each and every sovereign individual – as clearly defined and enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other International Human Rights Laws – to be “improper”.

Let it be abundantly clear to all that the “wider public interest” (interests of society) is only ever determined by the State, and therefore this sentence should actually read, “to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the interests of the State.“

The UK Government is apparently under the false impression that it is legally permitted to legislate that the State’s opinion (on what the public interest might be) is given legal superiority over the fundamental Human Rights of the individual. Under International Human Rights Law, that position is not moral, lawful or legal.

Indeed every piece of genuine Human Rights legislation (International Human Rights Laws, which all acknowledge the legal supremacy of the fundamental rights of the sovereign individual over any and all social groups including the State), instructs all States to remember their legal obligations to those fundamental rights, and to only act in concordance with the fact that the individual is the ONLY recipient of International Human Rights protection.

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” Article 3 (2),
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005)

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.” Article 28,
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005)

Let us remind the UK Government once more of an Article within the most recent, major International Human Rights Law, the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), which makes it abundantly clear that,

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” Article 3 (2).

That same Declaration, which you will notice has the words ‘Human Rights’ within its official title, furthermore states that:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.“
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005), Article 28

When such a piece of ‘Human Rights’ legislation instructs all ‘member States’ to NOT act in any way against “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms”, it is referring back to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which in turn makes it absolutely clear – as explained and illustrated above – that Human Rights refer alone to each and every sovereign individual, equally, without exception, and without favour, prejudice or discrimination.

Human Rights do not concern themselves at all with “personal responsibility” or with any “wider public interest”, other than to relegate them as being legally inferior to the fundamental rights of the individual. 

To “restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest”, as the UK Government puts it, is quite simply not morally, lawfully or legally possible, because “personal responsibility” (much as I believe it is lacking in many) and “the wider public interest” quite simply have never had a place within International Human Rights Law. They are simply not relevant in any way shape or form. Human Rights do not concern themselves at all with “personal responsibility” or with any “wider public interest”, other than to relegate them as being legally inferior to the fundamental rights of the individual.

Didn’t the nazis themselves use exactly the same rhetoric – “personal responsibility” and the “wider public interest” (as of course, determined by the State) – as an excuse to undertake the very crimes against humanity that directly led to the international community creating the Nuremberg Code (1947), and subsequently, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?

Indeed, using the very apt example of the nazis once more, didn’t they themselves use exactly the same rhetoric – “personal responsibility” and the “wider public interest” (as of course, determined by the State) – as an excuse to undertake the very crimes against humanity that directly led to the international community creating the Nuremberg Code (1947), and subsequently, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?

Those internationally ratified Human Rights Laws and Codes were specifically created, in order to make sure that no nation State would ever again be able to subvert the fundamental and universal rights and freedoms of each and every sovereign individual, by simply claiming that the individual needed to succumb to the greater will of society (a.k.a. the State), or to some perceived responsibility to one social group or another (in the case of the nazis, a responsibility to the Germanic fatherland). How about a responsibility to each and every individual, equally and without prejudice, discrimination or favour?

The UK Government must either defend this anti-Human Rights declaration on the global stage of public opinion, or officially retract it. There is no place within British politics for a government or any entity within the civil service or the State, which denies the fundamental, universal, International Human Rights of the individual.

So, in regards to these issues of “the wider public interest” and ‘State’s rights’ being in direct conflict with Human Rights, and the UK Government’s clear intention to subvert International Human Rights, the following question needs to be asked.

Is the UK Government actually constructing some variation of ‘political rights’ (powers of the State), or ‘civil rights (discriminating rights of one ‘officially recognised’ social group over another), and then mis-labelling that legislation under the term ‘Human Rights’?

I would caution the UK Government, along with any civil servants who support these actions, against this attempted subversion of International Human Rights, because the actions of a few anti-Human Rights individuals within the State structure, is sure to tar the entire British nation with the same brush – that of being a pariah State on the International stage. Furthermore, I advise the UK Government to not only make an immediate U-turn from this anti-Human Rights path, but to now confirm by way of a public statement, its absolute legal obligation and adherence to all International Human Rights Laws.

Martin Luther King Jnr. famously said in regards to Human Rights,
“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’.”

The reason for the creation of International Human Rights Laws was to put an end to the crimes against the sovereign individual by the State, the corporation and the collective, regardless of whether or not such crimes were deemed to be ‘legitimate’ under any domestic legislation.

For international Human Rights Laws to have any meaning or purpose whatsoever, they must, by default, supersede and negate any and all national legislation.

For international Human Rights Laws to have any meaning or purpose whatsoever, they must, by default, supersede and negate any and all national legislation.

If this were not unequivocally the case (and referring back to Martin Luther King Jnr.’s quote), then what the nazi’s did in 1930s and 1940s Germany would have indeed been legally protected by Germany’s own domestic laws.

Does the UK Government believe that its domestic laws outrank, in any way, International Human Rights Laws, which were specifically understood to necessarily supersede all nations’ legislation and policies?

Does the UK Government believe that its domestic laws outrank, in any way, International Human Rights Laws, which were specifically understood to necessarily supersede all nations’ legislation and policies?

Unless the UK Government wishes to argue this point, it must scrap the Human Rights Act 1998, and in its place, publicly and unequivocally re-affirm its legal obligations and adherence to all International Human Rights Laws.

On the other hand, if the UK Government does wish to challenge the absolute legal supremacy of International Human Rights Laws over any domestic legislation or policies, then the only way in which this might be regarded as at all legitimate by the people of the world, would be to do so in such a public and democratic way (though on a national and global level) as to reflect Article 10 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which states that,
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

Let Britain be the first nation to declare a full national discussion on the nature of Human Rights, and in particular, the unalienable nature of Human Rights and their absolute relationship to the sovereign individual. From that point forward, the people can then decide – through a referendum – the validity of International Human Rights, and any domestic variations of those rights.

6. Those who are accused by millions, of Human Rights violations, can obviously not legitimately oversee any Human Rights ‘revision’ or ‘improvement’.

No national regime or authority in history that has been accused of Human Rights violations has ever admitted to them. It is not the capacity of the accused to admit to such crimes that makes them valid, but the number of individuals who make the accusations, which inevitably gives them legitimacy.

No national regime or authority in history that has been accused of Human Rights violations has ever admitted to them. It is not the capacity of the accused to admit to such crimes that makes them valid, but the number of individuals who make the accusations, which inevitably gives them legitimacy.

Not since at least the Second World War have there been so many people accusing certain governments, institutions, politicians, doctors and scientists of crimes against humanity. Indeed, in global terms, both the number of people making such accusations, and the number of independent legal cases citing Human Rights violations and crimes against humanity towards such individuals and institutions, far outnumber anything witnessed in recorded history.

To name just one pertinent example of such legal accusations, and relating directly to those within the current UK Government, a complaint was filed on the 6th December 2021 at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, Netherlands, against (among others) Prime Minister BORIS JOHNSON; Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER WHITTY; (former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK; and (current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID.

Crimes cited in the charges made against the above, include Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Led by Human Rights lawyer Hannah Rose, the applicants include a retired police officer, and Dr. Mike Yeadon, the former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer.

It is not any particular court that makes such accusations relevant (not least of all because the ICC has itself been accused of internal corruption). It is the level of accusations, and the number of professional and respected people involved in bringing forward such legal accusations, which make them so relevant. There are many such legal proceedings happening all around the world, and the UK Government, along with its corporate partners, feature in many of them.

Any attempt to construct new domestic, so-called ‘Human Rights’ legislation must be seen in context with these numerous allegations of crimes against humanity directed towards those in government within this country.

Only a fool would see any current change to, or introduction of, ‘Human Rights’ legislation, as not being wholly in response to the Human Rights ‘issues’ that the State has faced over the last two years, most notably in its inability to ‘impose’ a mandatory medical intervention upon the sovereign individual, a policy that has ‘caste iron’ limitations under International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws, and which are now seeing high court after high court around the world issue judgements declaring vaccine mandates to be invalid, in respect to those Human Rights Laws and the fundamental freedoms that they legally bestow upon the individual.

It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that every government that has obediently followed the globalist policy of “vaccinating everyone on earth”, is now also attempting to introduce domestic legislation aimed at systematically diminishing the rights of the individual, in favour of the will of the State.

When looking around the world at what certain governments are currently undertaking in respect to domestic legislation, it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that every government that has obediently followed the globalist policy of “vaccinating everyone on earth”, is now also attempting to introduce domestic legislation aimed at systematically diminishing the rights of the individual, in favour of the will of the State. Such polices and agendas are fully in concordance with the demands of the multinational corporate system and key globalist agendas. This is obviously no coincidence.

So, it is not only the moral, lawful, and legal inability to override International Human Rights Laws (specifically created to necessarily overshadow all domestic legislation), which makes any attempt to domestically diminish the ‘universal’ Human Rights of the individual completely illegitimate.

Nor is it only the apparent but clear subservience of the UK Government itself to unelected and foreign (globalist) powers, in regards to what legislation it attempts to implement, which makes any legislation spurious, and even potentially treasonous.

Most topically, it is the extremely compromised current legal position of certain individuals within the structure of UK Government, particularly under the present government that directly oversaw the COVID policies disaster, which makes any such attempt to interfere with the Human Rights of the British people unquestionably illicit.

Those within the UK Government and civil service who are accused of Human Rights violations, both on the national and international stage, will obviously welcome any legislation that appears to absolve them from all legal ramifications, even if that protection is only regarded as legitimate under domestic legislation, and not under International Human Rights Laws.

It is surely not cynical, but logical and practical, to regard the involvement of any individual or institution that is widely accused of crimes against humanity, to be automatically ruled out from constructing new Human Rights legislation.

It is surely not cynical, but logical and practical, to regard the involvement of any individual or institution that is widely accused of crimes against humanity, to be automatically ruled out from constructing new Human Rights legislation. Such an absurd affront to International Human Rights Law, might be regarded by some as akin (at a national level) to having placed nazi judges in control of the Nuremberg Trials.

It must be fully recognised by all concerned that the very first International Human Rights Law was actually a court judgment made by an International Tribunal. That judgment was of course The Nuremberg Code (1947). This led directly in the following year to the creation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

In many ways, arguing over the current legal validity of the Nuremberg Code, and whether or not it may be described as Human Rights Law, is irrelevant, simply because everything it laid down has been not only been re-iterated by, but also strengthened by and expanded on by the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), probably the most comprehensive and up-to-date International Human Rights Law to date.

Both the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), and its predecessor, the Nuremberg Code (1947) are both wholly concerned with how the individual’s Human Rights might be threatened by medical experimentation, with the 2005 Declaration further clarifying that particular area of concern to include all medical and scientific experiments, interventions, procedures and associated technologies.

The really important thing that everyone needs to comprehend about both the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), and its predecessor, the Nuremberg Code (1947), is that they are both wholly concerned with how the individual’s Human Rights might be threatened by medical experimentation, with the 2005 Declaration further clarifying that particular area of concern to include all medical and scientific experiments, interventions, procedures and associated technologies. That pretty much covers every element of the State’s COVID policies, even including such things as track and trace, SMART technology, and 5G, because they are all associated technologies, experimenting with new technology in collaboration with a medical intervention, in parallel with various experimental science applications.

By now attempting to re-define Human Rights, in order to empower the medical and scientific agendas of the State over the sovereign rights of the individual, we are led straight back to the very reasons why that first Human Rights Code (the Nuremberg Code) was created – to curb the medical and scientific totalitarianism that had been witnessed under the nazi State.

The UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) provides significantly broader legal protection to the individual in regards to his or her bodily autonomy against any demands of the State than the Nuremberg Code does. However, the mentioning here of the Nuremberg Code (1947) is highly relevant, not least because the UK Government is attempting to legally castrate International Human Rights at the domestic level, following their incapacity to legally overcome those rights in respect to their scientific and medical interventions in 2020 and 2021. By now attempting to re-define Human Rights, in order to empower the medical and scientific agendas of the State over the sovereign rights of the individual, we are led straight back to the very reasons why that first Human Rights Code (the Nuremberg Code) was created – to curb the medical and scientific totalitarianism that had been witnessed under the nazi State.

Indeed, International Human Rights Law owes its very existence to the former creation of medical Human Rights – a.k.a. Bioethical Human Rights, or ‘Bioethics & Human Rights’ – as first detailed in the Nuremberg Code (1947). We have gone full circle in 75 years. We are once again faced with the real reason for the existence of International Human rights – the unalienable right to bodily autonomy in the face of any State, corporate or other intervention. Those legal rights exist without compromise, and without the capacity of any State to subvert them through domestic legislation. They are unalienable. We are born with them, and we have them throughout our entire lives.

On this 75th anniversary year of that initial legal statement on the fundamental, unalienable and superlative rights of the sovereign individual over any aims of the State (which always itself determines the imagined “wider public interest”), the UK Government is seeking to essentially eradicate that protection at the domestic level, and thereby also the protection of every International Human Rights Law that has followed in its path.

This follows two years in which the State, hand-in-hand with the pharmaceutical industry, and the propaganda provided by corporate media, has attempted to act in a way that is totally contradictory to the Nuremberg Code (1947) and to the core elements of all International Bioethics & Human Rights Laws that have been internationally ratified over the last 75 years.

The blatant medical and scientific crimes against the sovereign individual by the nazi regime, directly led to the legal protection of the sovereign individual… What we are seeing right now, 75 years on, is an even greater level of public outrage against the State, and a global re-awakening as to the fundamental importance of Human Rights to 8 billion individual people, each one regarded as equal.

Is it just coincidence that history seems to be going in a full circle? The blatant medical and scientific crimes against the sovereign individual by the nazi regime, directly led to the legal protection of the sovereign individual, globally (universally) implemented under the Nuremberg Code (1947), the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and all the way through to the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005).

What we are seeing right now, 75 years on, is an even greater level of public outrage against the State, and a global re-awakening as to the fundamental importance of Human Rights to 8 billion individual people, each one regarded as equal.

ONLY International Human Rights Laws provide legal protection without any single contradiction to that non-discriminatory position.

International Human Rights Laws are the ONLY example in which true equality in society exists within law, without any documented political or legal opposition to their validity, worldwide.

It is time for those in the UK Government to either put up or shut up.

I challenge each and every individual on the UK political stage to either publicly denounce International Human Rights Laws, or alternatively, to publicly state that they acknowledge their complete legal obligation and political adherence to all such laws.

It is now time for all politicians to prove their Human Rights credentials to the people of Britain, or alternatively, to step down and allow those who do respect the Human Rights of of each and every individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour, to take their place as a law abiding and moral political representative of the people.

I challenge each and every individual on the UK political stage to either publicly denounce International Human Rights Laws, or alternatively, to publicly state that they acknowledge their complete legal obligation and political adherence to all such laws. It is now time for all politicians to prove their Human Rights credentials to the people of Britain, or alternatively, to step down.

• Does the UK Government fully acknowledge its obligation to adhere to all International Human Rights Laws? If it does, then it cannot legitimately create domestic variations.
• How does a domestic version of international ‘Human Rights’ tally with the reality that Human Rights apply to each individual on the planet, equally. Will every nation be ratifying the proposed UK Bill of Rights?
• Does the UK Government regard the people of Britain as more deserving of Human Rights or less deserving of them than those who exist outside of Britain’s ‘domestic’ legislation? International Human Rights perceive fundamental rights to be innate, universal and indiscriminate. What places the British people outside of those unalienable legal protections?
• Isn’t any attempt to distinguish one nation of people as being somehow separated from the global notion that Human Rights are ‘universal’ – as defined under International Human Rights Law – likely to be regarded as overtly or covertly racist, by those who do not perceive the British people to have any more or less rights than them, either as individuals, or as a nation of British individuals?
• Human Rights are the only global issue on which the UK Government seeks to displace or amend global laws, legislation, treaties, conventions or codes. If domestic law is so absolute in its legal power as to be able to ‘revise’ International Human Rights Laws, which are meant to be necessarily unassailable by the State, does this mean that we can now very easily proceed to legally ‘revise’ all international trade, banking, maritime, military etc laws, treaties, conventions and codes at the domestic level?
• Does the proposed Bill relate to civil rights & political rights, or to Human Rights? They are legally not the same. Human Rights refers only to protection of the sovereign individual, and not to any conceived group identity, or corporate body.
• The UK proposal talks about balancing Human Rights with the “the wider public interest”. The wider public interest is not relevant to any International Human Rights Laws, because group identity does not protect the individual, equally, and without prejudice, discrimination or favour – a principle which International Human Rights are founded on.
• Those who are currently accused by millions of people around the world of Human Rights violations, can obviously not legitimately overseer any Human Rights ‘revision’ or ‘improvement’. Those who believe it can, show themselves to be no different from any other nation State or individual that has been widely accused of serious crimes against humanity in the past. We can expect the UK Government to completely ignore this subject, but that doesn’t mean that the world will ignore it. It is up to those civil servants who remain lawful and in genuine service to the people of the nation, to understand the seriousness of this point, and to make sure that the current Government is not permitted to make such a mockery of the law, and of the British people. Those who are widely accused of crimes against humanity, must not be allowed to alter UK legislation, which may in any way affect their capacity to be held accountable under the standard and accepted judicial procedures, which serve to investigate and try such legal charges.