Another International Treaty
2 December 2021 - 12:51 pm
So we already looked at the “International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights” in this article, which is legally binding and signed up to by almost every country (with a few notable exceptions) but certainly includes all the major so-called “Western democracies” like the UK, US, European countries, Australia and New Zealand etc. You know, all the ones that claim to respect bodily autonomy, freedom of choice, and so on that are now routinely implementing alleged “mandates” that are effectively the loss of your job if you don’t take the evidently ineffective (depending on your view of what it was supposed to achieve) injections, or worse.
There is another Treaty that is also relevant to this. It is called the “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights” and appears to have been updated last on the 19th October 2005. It is a UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization) thing. UNESCO brands itself as the:
Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs
In this “Universal Declaration” there are some important and relevant sections such as…
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rightshttp://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
– Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
– The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
That destroys the standard “greater good” argument, where the claimed benefits to “society” override the choices of the individual. Then we have this section…
Article 6 – Consenthttp://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
– Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
– Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
– In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
The reference to “Article 27” is the part that Governments and COVID Disciples would attempt to leverage in order to claim they can override those two sections. Article 27 states…
Article 27 – Limitations on the application of the principles
If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.
They would and do cite the “interests of public safety” and “protection of public health” as the reasons for just dumping any and all respect for prior informed consent, and justify mandating injections.
The problem with that argument is there is no evidence that supports the claims that any of the interventions have been in the “interests of public safety” or contribute to the “protection of public health”. It is claimed all the time, but there actually isn’t any real, scientific data that backs that up. As the burden of proof is on the party claiming a medical intervention is effective, and not on anyone claiming it isn’t, the only so-called proofs we’ve been offered are computer models that are engineered by Government employees and on the payroll of conflicted parties, decrees by politicians and public health officials, also on the payroll of the Government and conflicted parties. The data to allegedly support the efficacy of the injections is being deliberately obscured from the public. Anyone asking any basic questions is now routinely censored and barred from public debating space. Internationally recognised leaders in things like immunity, vaccines, epidemiology, mRNA technology and other related scientific fields such as Michael Yeadon who was the chief scientist and vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit in Kent who Wikipedia now list as an “anti-vaccine activist”, Dr Robert Malone who was part of the team who invented mRNA technology is now fact-checked for deliberately misquoted and recontextualised remarks, and generally censored. John Ioannidis who is acknowledged as one of the most published and influential scientists in the world who because of his refusal to go along with the anti-scientific, politically and ideologically motivated “new normal” is now accused of “hubris”. The irony.
Back to the main topic, the “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights” along with the “International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights” between them make it 100% clear that “prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information“ is a right, not a privilege bestowed by Governments. The ICCPR makes it clear that under no circumstances can those rights be overridden, and the caveat in the UDBHR is not relevant as there is NO EVIDENCE to support the claims regarding these interventions.
These are important things to be aware of, and could help in dealing with employers who simply accept the diktats of the State and attempt to enforce them.