The First UK Governmental Body To Officially Acknowledge its Obligations Under All National and International Human Rights and Bioethics Legislation and Treaties

On first inspection of the above headline, you may be forgiven for not fully grasping the monumental significance of this statement.

The email to which it refers was received at 9.11am GMT on 03.11.21

It reads as follows:

OFFICIAL

Thank you for your email.

Plymouth City Council acknowledges its obligations under all national and international human rights and bioethics legislation/treaties.

Yours Sincerely
Councillor Nick Kelly
Leader of Plymouth City Council

When making such an official and unequivocal statement, I am going to assume that the leader of a UK City Council knows what he is referring to, when he states “all national and international human rights and bioethics legislation and treaties.” However, so that we are under no misconceptions in that regard, it is useful for the reader to know that Mr Kelly is responding to an email, which specifically mentioned three particular International Bioethics and Human Rights legislative laws or treaties, namely:

The Nuremberg Code 1947

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights 2005

So what makes this official statement on behalf of a UK Governmental body just so monumentally significant, not just in national terms, but in global terms?

THE SUPERLATIVE POWER OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
In terms of social power, Human Rights are a double-edged sword. They are equally as powerful ‘morally’ as they are ‘legally’. This places them firmly above all other legislation.

As Martin Luther King Jnr. once rightly said, “Never forget that everything that Hitler did in Germany was legal!” Just because something is legislated does not make it morally right. What makes International Human Rights Law different is that it was originally created as a direct response to the Nazi State. In other words, it is legislation that is utterly founded in the principles of morality, and therefore by default, the principle of the individual’s unalienable and sovereign rights over and above the State. It is both legally and morally commanding. That is what makes it unique, and so very powerful in the hands of any lawfully and morally minded individual.

Can you imagine a leader of a council, or any politician in a democratic nation, stating in writing that they “did not acknowledge their obligations under all national and international human rights and bioethics legislation/treaties.” It would be unconscionable, and would likely bring that individual’s political career to a very sudden end, and so it should.

So, if it is so unthinkable for a politician to denounce, reject, or deny in any way, his or her obligations towards International Bioethics and Human Rights Law, why is the above statement from Plymouth City Council so important?

OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ALLOWS FOR OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED CHALLENGES
It is so important, simply because once you have a decent understanding of what International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws actually obligates – in legal terms – of every individual, and particularly those in public office, then having such an official statement on record means that I am now able to apply every article of International Bioethics and Human Rights Law – as an officially acknowledged legal parameter – to any council policy.

There were no caveats in the council’s official statement, and of course, how could there be? Should a politician be able to pick and choose when Human Rights are applicable, and when they can be ignored? Of course not. I’m sure the nazis would have been more than happy to sign up to such International Human Rights Law in the 1930s, if they could have chosen when to ignore it. The same logic must be applied to every politician, institution and corporation, including above all, the State, in today’s world, as much as it applied at Nuremberg in 1946-47, and at the UN in 1948.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT A POLITICAL CHOICE. THEY ARE AN OBLIGATION
There are no choices in Human Rights Law. There is only accepted obligation or criminality, on a universal, global scale. Those who ignore that obligation must be named and shamed, and potentially charged with crimes against humanity. All politicians need to become fully aware of that reality, and it is down to you, the individual, to force them to acknowledge their unequivocal obligation to all International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws, in their totality, or to resign. That is their only real choice, both morally and legally.

The real point here, is that no one, until now, has pushed their council or their political representatives to make such a legally and morally binding statement, in regards to International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws. Indeed, as far as I’m aware, this is the very first acknowledgement of its kind in the entire world. Yes, States all initially sign up to, and ratify, these pieces of International legislation, but individual politicians, councils, institutions, and corporations do not. It is time for that to change!

As someone who has studied every line of the above three, and most significant, Human Rights laws, I can say without any doubt at all, that they provide everything that a person who wants freedom from State and corporate tyranny requires, in order to legally protect them and their family. If you have not studied these three seminal pieces of legislation, I urge you to do so immediately. I then urge you to demand the same of all your political representatives. Request that they sign ‘The Pledge’, and if they refuse to do so, demand that they put down in writing their reasons, and then place that refusal on the public record.

WHY BIOETHICS & HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS ARE YOUR BEST FRIEND?
I will conclude by mentioning a most important and central point about Human Rights, which 99% of people do not realise. However, once you do realise it, the issue of Human Rights takes on a whole different meaning.

Human Rights are wholly different to civil rights. Human Rights came first and are superior to civil rights for that simple reason alone, but also for other important reasons.

Human Rights are all about protecting the Individual – each and every individual, equally – from all persecution, harassment, discrimination, and physical harm. Civil Rights, which were introduced 20 years later, give rights to the State, institutions, and ‘approved’ human groupings. Indeed the UN Universal Declaration on Civil and Political Rights (1966) mentions ‘the State’ over 60 times! No International legislation with the words ‘Human Rights’ in the title that I have found, mentions ‘the State’ even once. There’s the real difference between Human Rights and civil rights. Human Rights are designed to protect YOU, as a sovereign individual, against all forms of tyranny. In essence, under Human Rights Law, you are placed firmly above the State, and above the society as a whole.

You don’t need to like the United Nations, and what it may appear to stand for today, in order to love Human Rights. From my research, it appears that Human Rights are the work of good, moral, genuine individuals within the United Nations institution. It is no surprise that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified as early as 1948, at the very point at which the United Nations was being formed. I regard these legal Rights of the Individual over the State to be a kind of trade-off, in order to get decent politicians of the time on side with the globalist agenda.

Such ‘good’ politicians were rightly very wary of the elite’s perpetual attempts to form a totalitarian global government (known at the time as the ‘World Government Movement’) and regarded a document such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an international version of the US Constitution and the Magna Carta rolled into one. The only concern was that it might be diminished in legal importance in years to come, which in retrospect, was a reasonable prediction. This is why it was so memorably enshrined by those who constructed it, as being the most superlative legislation in existence, and why it still holds that status today within the UN, despite attempts by many within that institution to diminish its importance.

Since 1948, we have seen a gradual decline in the promotion of Human Rights by the controlled media. All you will hear from them is the term ‘Civil Rights’, repeated dozens of times each day, but with little or no mention at all of ‘Human Rights’. This is obviously no coincidence. Human Rights stand for the individual, and are therefore a thorn in the side of the State, and a legal bulwark to any attempt by multinationals and globalist institutions to control society through government legislation. Human Rights are your best legal friend, because by default, they were designed to always supersede State legislation. Remind yourself of Martin Luther King Jnr.’s quote above if you’re not sure why that is.

International Bioethics and Human Rights protect you and your family from all tyrannical State legislation and regulations, so get to know them!

Please go to the following pages, and take an hour or so to read exactly what my City Council has acknowledged it is legally obligated to abide by. It is not only you who may be very surprised about just how many individual freedoms and protections such an obligation legally provides to you and your loved ones. I somehow think that those who work for my council may soon be rather surprised too!

The Nuremberg Code 1947

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights 2005

ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS YOU HAVE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY POLITICIAN WHO HAS BROKEN ANY OF THESE LAWS?

UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948)
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Article 19

“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 20 (1)

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 26 (3)

“Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community.”
Article 27 (1)

UNESCO DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2005)
“A person’s identity includes biological, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual dimensions.”
Preamble

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

“The autonomy of persons to make decisions… is to be respected.”
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005) Article 5

“Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned… 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… and international human rights law.”
Article 6 (2)

“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.”
Article 6 (3)

“Special protection is to be given to persons who do not have the capacity to consent: authorization for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned… the person concerned should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process of consent, as well as that of withdrawing consent.”
Article 7 (a)

“No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005) Article 11

“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

Establish whether or not they support and adhere to International Bioethics and Human Rights Law.

Are they prepared to sign a declaration that publicly confirms their full adherence to
International Bioethics and Human Rights Laws?