What is the point in Human Rights Laws if the vast majority of people do not actually know what they are, or just how much they protect and defend every single individual’s sovereignty, lifestyle, livelihood, personal welfare, established cultural norms and way of life?

Human Rights did not suddenly come into being with the UN Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, nor with the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, nor with the Magna Carta in 1215. Our unalienable rights as sovereign individuals have always been understood to exist since time immemorial, just as they have always been ignored by those who craved ever greater power in society and ever more control over others.

When we talk about Natural Law and Common Law, or democracy and governance only by consent, we are really talking about law and governance that is founded in the complete understanding that our sovereignty as individuals is always superlative to any and all kinds of authority, so long as we do not seek to physically injure or harm another individual, or seek to take his or her personal possessions (fundamental belongings). This is really as complex as it needs to be. Everything else is a largely needless complexity that more often than not erodes our sovereign rights in favour of the State, corporate institutions, and those with Toxic Wealth.

A life that is properly protected by genuine Human Rights is one that is free from any kind of authoritarian encroachment or infraction of those birthrights and liberties, which every human being should expect to fully enjoy within any truly civilised society.

What is the point in Human Rights if governments, politicians, big business and establishment institutions simply pick and choose when to promote and legally enforce them, and then when to totally ignore them, acting in ways that blatantly breach even the most sacred and cherished of those Human Rights?

Of course, the answer is that no institution or authority must ever be permitted to do so, and that no politician should be allowed to hold a public position without visibly supporting that standpoint. The only real question is how can the 8 billion individuals within human society best ensure, once and for all, that this is the case?

Do your democratic representatives support and fully adhere to International Human Rights? Your member of parliament? Your senator? Your congressman or congresswoman? Your President? Your city mayor? Those who make the decisions in your councils and government departments?

Surely, if they are not eager and willing to sign on the dotted line that they do, and that they always will, should they not immediately be removed from their political posts?

Nuremberg 2™ has two key purposes.

1. It seeks to educate each and every individual on the importance of knowing their human rights.

2. It seeks to require in legislation that every individual and institution in public service is fully versed in all the most major International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws, and furthermore, that every political representative of the people (elected individual) and every political representative of the State and corporations (non-elected politicians), must legally pledge to uphold all major International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws, in order that they may retain their political position.

It is the moral duty of each individual in such a public service post to ensure that they never act outside of such laws. It is now time that it is also made to be their enforceable legal responsibility to do so.

Nuremberg 2™ is proud to evoke the name given to the very first International Human Rights Code – The Nuremberg Code 1947.

This groundbreaking Statute paved the way for the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and all subsequent International Human Rights Laws, created to protect the individual against State, corporate and institutional tyranny.

Most people are unaware that International Human Rights Law was founded on the grave concern of what should be “permissible” in respect to “medical experiments”, and conversely, what must never be permitted to happen ever again. The Nuremberg Code 1947 was written for this purpose.

Due to The Nuremberg Code, it is fair to say that all Human Rights Law was founded on the single principle that the sovereign individual has total power of consent in regards to all medical experiments, without fear of any political or social discrimination of any kind.

The term “medical experiments” used in The Nuremberg Code was subsequently clarified under International Human Rights Law, as including all “medical or scientific research, experimentation, intervention and associated technologies” (UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005).

Subsequent Human Rights Laws reinforced and expanded on this lawful and legal supremacy of the individual human being over the institution, establishing the organic individual as wholly sovereign, with no ‘non-individual’ (the State, society as a whole, an authority, corporation or institution) ranking higher under law. So long as the individual themselves remains ‘lawful’, the sovereignty of that individual remains legally superlative over any collective authority.

Empowering each and every Individual of the world is essential. Get to know your International Human Rights, particularly in relation to sovereign freedoms and liberty, and in respect to medical and scientific experimentation, intervention, research, and associated technologies.

Most people are not aware that the individual’s rights and superiority over science and medicine are the subjects that have been covered the most over the past 70 years by International Human Rights Laws.

Even fewer people are aware that even the interests of ‘society as a whole’ (which are, of course, always subjective – subject to the opinion of one political group or another) are specifically stated to be immaterial in comparison to the individual’s absolute freedom to deny consent to scientific and medical research, experimentation or intervention. Furthermore, an individual who choses NOT to participate in such research, experimentation, intervention or associated technologies must remain totally free of any kind of social discrimination or unequal treatment whatsoever.

The 3 International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws that Nuremberg 2™ focuses on are:

The Nuremberg Code 1947
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005

A further International Code of Practice that very much relates and further upholds the above is:
Principles for Those in Research and Experimentation, WMA Committee on Medical Ethics 1954

Nuremberg 2™ is dedicated to promoting the Bioethics & Human Rights Laws and Principles, particularly of the above, with direct quotes of the most important Clauses and Articles from International Laws that have been ratified by all major nations, making them globally enshrined in legislation, and thereby legally binding within all nations that are not considered to be ‘rogue States’.

The blatant breaching of Human Rights Laws by any State is regarded as a ‘Crime Against Humanity’. Those who oppose, try to suppress, or do not support the public’s awareness of Human Rights Laws are no better than those who blatantly breach those laws.

It is the duty of all responsible and law abiding governments and institutions to help promote International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws. These laws are created in order to legally and morally protect the individual from all illicit State, corporate and institutional criminality and authoritarianism.

Those who understand the supreme importance of Common Law, and that it is wholly superlative to all ‘legislation’, should also understand that International Human Rights Law is legislation that is clearly founded on the principles of Common Law.

Once you begin to actually read the Articles and Clauses of International Bioethics and Human Rights Law, you realise that those who wrote it fully understood that ‘the individual’ ALWAYS supersedes the State; the society as a whole; the institution; the corporation; parliamentary legislation etc, so long as that individual themselves abides by the Common Law. That is to say that the Individual must respect, and does not take or overtly compromise, the body and possessions of any other individual.

Common Law protects the body and personal possessions of each and every individual, equally. The human condition dictates that an infinite number of other concerns in life may affect the individual, but it is a fair to say, that if the individual’s physical being and personal possessions are respected and protected by the social authority, above all other concerns, then this is the best foundation for any civilised society.

This is exactly what the Common Law does. It serves to protect each individual’s physical being, their home, and their personal effects and basic assets from all others, without any discrimination or privilege. Indeed, to not be a supporter of Common Law is to be a supporter of tyranny. It really is that simple.

The most important thing in any legislation is that it fully adheres to basic Common Law principles. International Human Rights Laws does this. However, that is not to say that such International Human Rights Laws will continue to be so ‘lawful’ and thereby legitimate, or indeed, that certain anomalies may not already be found within its numerous Articles and Clauses. However, by and large, no reasonable person could challenge its overall compliance with those central Common Law principles.

Of course, The Nuremberg Code 1947 and The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 were fashioned in direct response to the nazi pharmaceutical and scientific industries’ obsession with medical and scientific experimentation; and the political totalitarian ideologies and invasive mass mind control propaganda techniques of national socialism (nazism) and technocracy (Italian fascism) at that time.

These cookie-cutter adaptations of ‘Statism’ – along with international socialism (Soviet communism), firmly placed ‘the State’ as being superior to ‘the Individual’, and ‘State legislation’ as superlative to the ‘Common Law’. The International Human Rights Law that responded to those crimes against society and against so many millions of individuals was designed to put the power firmly in the hands of the individual.

As the civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jnr. famously declared, “Nothing that Hitler did in Germany was ‘illegal’.”

What he was quite rightly stating is that just because the State makes something ‘legal’ by passing ‘legislation’, it does not necessarily make it ‘lawful’.

The term ‘lawful’ refers to the Common Law (law of the land), whereas the term ‘legal’ refers to ‘legislation’ or ‘statute’ that is passed by parliamentary institutions. In short, that which is legal is not always lawful!

Question: if you had been alive in 1930s Germany before the Second World War, would you have blindly supported everything that the State passed into legislation, or would you have refused to obey legislation – such as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 – which blatantly broke the Human Rights of the individual under Common Law terms, and which directly gave rise to the atrocities of the following ten years?

In other words, would you have been ‘legal’ but ‘unlawful’ by following the nazi rulebook, or would you have broken the legislation in order to remain a lawful human being?

For more on the superlative nature of Common Law; why there is currently a firestorm of excited discussion regarding Common Law currently going on all over the world; and why the establishment is desperately trying to ignore it, belittle it, and suppress it, take a look at The Common Law article page.

• The promotion of International Bioethics and Human Rights laws, codes and principles via websites, social media, posters, info cards, clothing and other mediums.
• The empowering of the lawful individual over any unlawful State, institution or corporation.
• The challenging of politicians and public servants to sign ‘The Pledge’, which ensures their adherence to Bioethics and Human Rights Law whilst in public office.
• The questioning of the State and institutions, via the use of Freedom of Information requests, on policies and legislation that potentially contravene Bioethics and Human Rights Law, and which thereby threaten the lawful freedoms and social liberty of the individual.
• Educating people on the importance of Bioethics and Human Rights, by revealing their history all the way back to the Nuremberg Code of 1947, and why Human Rights are superlative in lawful and legal terms, superceding State legislation and Civil Rights, and are only secondary to the ‘Common Law’.