{"id":295492,"date":"2024-09-25T07:18:21","date_gmt":"2024-09-25T07:18:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=295492"},"modified":"2024-09-27T07:21:55","modified_gmt":"2024-09-27T07:21:55","slug":"the-uns-support-for-covid-lockdowns-and-vaccine-mandates-shows-why-we-should-fear-its-pact-for-the-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=295492","title":{"rendered":"The UN\u2019s Support for Covid Lockdowns and Vaccine Mandates Shows Why We Should Fear its \u2018Pact for the Future\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr David Bell and Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh<\/strong><\/a> \u2013 The Daily Sceptic Sept 23, 2024<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The UN Secretariat held its Summit of the Future<\/a> at its headquarters in New York this week, on September 22nd-23rd. Few could number the many global summits that have been held across this nebulous grouping of entities, programmes and funds, although a list of the major ones may be found<\/a>. They all focus on the noblest causes such as human rights, the environment, education, sustainable development, children and indigenous people that no one can easily oppose.<\/p>\n

These gatherings give professional politicians an opportunity to make declarations in front of the iconic blue and white peace flag, astutely posing for pictures for their domestic cover pages. International and national staff take advantage of business class travel and fancy hotels on taxpayers\u2019 money, justifying again their irreplaceable jobs, comfortable salaries and perks. Journalists tell us how they all feel inspired and moved by the new agenda and how sincere these promises are. Pre-approved non-governmental organisations (NGOs), frequently led by former politicians<\/a> and espousing humanitarian missions in concert with the international aid they parasitise move in to shake hands with the big boys and applaud the system.<\/p>\n

All is beautifully scripted, staged and acted. This is the ever-growing UN industrial complex.<\/p>\n

Only \u2018We The Peoples\u2019 are not there.<\/p>\n

Once built on the premise of improving human lives, rights and livelihoods, the system has become a cause unto itself, repeating the same empty messages and hypocritical promises over and over again, and always expanding. There are always compelling reasons to spend the money of others.<\/p>\n

A system self-proclaimed for \u2018The Peoples\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The UN Charter<\/a>, signed on June 26th 1945 in San Francisco in the aftermath of the Second World War began with the first famous words inspired by the 1787 U.S. Constitution<\/a> for an international context: \u201cWe The Peoples of the United Nations\u2026\u201d. These are the words from which the UN system draws its legitimacy based on the principle that those elected by or representing \u2018The Peoples\u2019 make decisions on their behalf. Article 55 affirms the role of the organs to be created.<\/p>\n

Article 55 (UN Charter)<\/p>\n

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:<\/p>\n

\u2013 higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development;<\/p>\n

\u2013 solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and<\/p>\n

\u2013 universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.<\/p>\n

However, unlike the American Founding Fathers who immediately chose to guarantee inalienable and fundamental rights of their citizens in the first set of amendments<\/a> agreed in 1791 (known as the Bill of Rights), the UN\u2019s founders merely achieved in 1948 a symbolic Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> (UDHR) without binding force, although it later inspired key international and regional human rights treaties.<\/p>\n

A major provision, Article 19(2), is often overlooked, despite its profound impact on the interpretation of all other provisions recognising fundamental rights based on the circumstances where human rights may be limited. The second paragraph (highlighted below) allows limitations made to human rights and freedoms by authorities for the sake of preserving \u201cmorality, public order and the general welfare\u201d.<\/p>\n

Article 29 (UDHR)<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.<\/li>\n
  2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose <\/strong>of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    3, These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.<\/p>\n

    The third provision here is where the UDHR and the U.S. Bill of Rights diverge most fundamentally. Whilst the purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to stop a tyrannical government from overriding the will of the people, the UDHR specifically states that the UN, in its increasing determination to centralise authority within itself, can do so. After laying out the fundamental principles that humans are equal and of equal worth, they could not bring themselves to leave it there, but needed to ensure that some were more equal than others.<\/p>\n

    Human history has shown that it is effortless for any government to claim that restrictive laws meet requirements for \u201cgeneral welfare\u201d and the greater good, especially in situations deemed by those in power to be endangering public order. The COVID-19 experience has shown that emergency measures are far more readily imposed than they are withdrawn, and \u2018the People\u2019s\u2019 desire for fundamental rights and freedoms may be limited by irrational fear spread by those in power. This is exactly why constitutions should prevent such abuse, rather than justify it.<\/p>\n

    Two weeks for the UN to flatten human rights<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    The UN system is led by the highest servant of \u2018The Peoples\u2019 \u2013 the Secretary-General (UNSG). According to UNSG\u2019s own website<\/a>, \u201cthe Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world\u2019s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them\u201d. This official is expected to \u201cuphold the values and moral authority of the UN\u201d even at the risk of challenging some member states.<\/p>\n

    On February 24th 2020, human rights were still proclaimed at the centre of the system. At a press conference at the WHO\u2019s headquarters in Geneva, UNSG Antonio Guterres urged<\/a> that \u201call countries must do everything, respecting naturally the principle of non-discrimination, without stigmatisation, respecting human rights \u2013 but doing everything that they can to contain the disease\u201d. While \u201cdoing everything they can\u201d implicitly put the importance of the disease above human rights concerns, at least these rated a prominent mention.<\/p>\n

    On March 11th 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic.<\/p>\n

    On March 19th 2020, at a virtual press conference, UNSG sent out his blessing<\/a> to any exceptional measure to be taken since the world was \u201cat war with the virus\u201d:<\/p>\n

    My central message is clear:\u00a0We are in an unprecedented situation and the normal rules no longer apply. We cannot resort to the usual tools in such unusual times.<\/p>\n

    Nevertheless, he still made a verbal effort to uphold his mandate: \u201cWe must recognize that the poorest and most vulnerable \u2014 especially women \u2014 will be the hardest hit.\u201d But recognition, of course, is not respect or protection. His statement was alarming in that he, and anyone paying attention, already knew that the vast majority of the world\u2019s population were at minimal or no risk, and only the sick or elderly were shown to be likely to suffer from the virus directly. However, the impact of the unusual response on human rights and on increasing poverty and inequality were also expected.<\/p>\n

    On March 26th 2020, Guterres encouraged<\/a> states to shut down completely until a vaccine came.<\/p>\n

    Allow me to highlight three critical areas for concerted G-20 action.<\/p>\n

    First, to suppress the transmission of COVID-19 as quickly as possible.<\/p>\n

    That must be our common strategy.<\/p>\n

    It requires a coordinated G-20 response mechanism guided by WHO.<\/p>\n

    All countries must be able to combine systematic testing, tracing, quarantining and treatment with restrictions on movement and contact \u2013 aiming to suppress transmission of the virus.<\/p>\n

    And they have to coordinate the exit strategy to keep it suppressed until a vaccine becomes available.<\/p>\n

    Was Guterres a real spokesperson for the poorest and the most vulnerable, those who were most disadvantaged by restrictive measures? No, he wasn\u2019t. He never invited states to review their emergency measures.<\/p>\n

    One month later, on April 27th 2020, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), headquartered in Palais Wilson, Geneva, not far from the World Health Organisation (WHO), released its guidance on \u2018Emergency measures and COVID-19<\/a>\u2018. It validated the restrictive measures \u201cfor public health reasons\u201d, encouraging rather than questioning the removal of the basic rights the organisation was once assumed to uphold, and listed<\/a> the following six requirements for emergency measures:<\/p>\n

    \u2013 Legality: The restriction must be \u2018provided by law\u2019. This means that the limitation must be contained in a national law of general application, which is in force at the time the limitation is applied. The law must not be arbitrary or unreasonable, and it must be clear and accessible to the public.<\/p>\n

    \u2013 <\/em>Necessity: The restriction must be necessary for the protection of one of the permissible grounds stated in the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights<\/em><\/a>, which include public health, and must respond to a pressing social need.<\/p>\n

    \u2013 Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the interest at stake, and be the least intrusive option among those that might achieve the desired result.<\/p>\n

    \u2013 Non-discrimination: No restriction shall discriminate contrary to the provisions of international human rights law.<\/p>\n

    \u2013 All limitations should be interpreted strictly and in favour of the right at issue. No limitation can be applied in an arbitrary manner.<\/p>\n

    \u2013 The authorities have the burden of justifying restrictions upon rights.<\/p>\n

    In addition, emergency legislation and measures taken must be<\/a>: i) \u201cstrictly temporary in scope\u201d; ii) \u201cthe least intrusive to achieve the stated public health goals\u201d, and iii) \u201cincluding safeguards such as review clauses, in order to ensure return to ordinary laws as soon as the emergency situation is over\u201d.<\/p>\n

    No follow-up actions were taken by the UN regarding the consideration of this guidance.<\/p>\n

    \u2018We The Peoples\u2019 have learned a hard lesson: our lives and rights were not the reason for the UN, but subject to it and its wealthy and powerful partners<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Remarkably, less than a year later, in February 2021, Guterres wrote an article in the <\/a>Guardian<\/a> <\/em>newspaper to condemn the \u201cpandemic of human rights abuses\u201d. He conveniently did not mention the complicity of the UN system in aiding, abetting and promoting lockdowns. He completely failed to include any self-assessment of whether his public actions (speeches) and inactions, or those of his organisation, contributed to this unprecedented and protracted abuse on a global scale.<\/p>\n

    An irrational panic to kill the individual right to bodily autonomy<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Following Guterres\u2019s example, OHCHR did not defend the fundamental right to refuse vaccines, as one would assume its mandate demanded.<\/p>\n

    On December 17th 2020, the office released<\/a> its statements on \u2018Human Rights and COVID-19 vaccines<\/a>\u2018. Amazingly, it proposed<\/a> to recognise these vaccines as \u201cglobal public goods\u201d and called for<\/a> their equitable distribution and affordable price. Nowhere in the document was mentioned the right for anyone to elect not to be injected, as the basis of international human rights agreements, such as the Nuremberg Code<\/a> would seem to demand.<\/p>\n

    Nuremberg Code<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      OHCHR\u2019s inadequate understanding of human rights was not a mistake. It persisted and signed. On December 8th 2021, by a video message<\/a> addressed to the Human Rights Council, its chief, Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, stated (at 5\u201930\u201d) that \u201cany mandatory vaccination regime needs flexibilities for appropriate exceptions\u201d, but that \u201cit may be acceptable to condition the exercise of certain other rights and liberties \u2013 such as access to schools, hospitals or other public, or publicly accessible, spaces \u2013 on vaccination\u201d.<\/p>\n

      Although Bachelet recognised that forced injections were not acceptable (\u201cin no circumstances should people be forcibly administered a vaccine\u201d), she was perfectly happy to restrict what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR, including that of education and participation in society. It was extremely strange that she did not define what was forced vaccination. Vast numbers of people on earth took the vaccines because they were threatened of losing jobs, or losing the right to see family members, attend schools, reopen their business, or even to receive medical treatment. Surely must this amount to forced injections within any reasonable assessment of human need.<\/p>\n

      Bachelet further stated that appropriate fines could be part of legal consequences for refuseniks. Her flawed arguments were probably based on the so-called \u2018greater good\u2019 approach of COVID-19, widely associated in the past with fascist and other totalitarian regimes. Such measures were falsely promoted<\/a> through the WHO\u2019s propagandistic slogan<\/a> \u201cno one is safe until everyone is safe\u201d, referred to in her speech.<\/p>\n

      It is dumbfounding that, for Bachelet \u2013 a physician by training (Humboldt University of Berlin) and once Chile\u2019s Minister of Health, then President \u2013 vaccine mandates did not violate human rights principles. Didn\u2019t she know about the Nuremberg Code<\/a> developed so near her place of learning, that codifies 10 principles of individual autonomy and the absolute principle of voluntary consent for medical experiments and treatments? (And yes, the mRNA vaccines were still experimental, but informed consent is also basic to all medical ethics.)<\/p>\n

      Didn\u2019t she know that the UDHR also put the individual first before any greater good, and that there is no community good that doesn\u2019t allow a free and full development of an individual\u2019s personality?<\/p>\n

      Article 29 (UDHR)<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        These two texts, the Nuremberg Code and UDHR \u2013 though of non-binding nature, codifying the highest ethical and moral values of our societies \u2013 were developed after World War II to protect individuals at the mercy of authorities who, very often, have the monopoly of violence, control and punishment, while telling their populations to sacrifice for the community\u2019s \u2018greater good\u2019.<\/p>\n

        Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n

        The enormous harms to fundamental rights and freedoms of the voiceless billions have been fast buried, while the UN machinery continues its business-as-usual \u2013 this time with an \u2018agenda for the future\u2019 initiated by the same Guterres. While proposing three non-binding documents<\/a> (\u2018Pact for the Future\u2019, \u2018Declaration for Future Generations\u2019 and \u2018Global Digital Compact\u2019), the UN plans to expand its mandate and funding to advise and lead on every issue, including the \u201cneeds and interests of future generations\u201d and \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d. It claims to be the only competent and legitimate authority to prevent and manage the eventual \u201ccomplex global shocks\u201d, meaning crises beyond one single state\u2019s border and capacity. However, without serious and independent assessments of the outrageous Covid response, and without recognition of the UN\u2019s technical, advisory and moral failures, any agenda should be assumed to be intended to serve the same authoritarian \u2013 and for the UN\u2019s partners, very profitable \u2013 aims.<\/p>\n

        These documents likely will be adopted by the same political leaders who are yet to face inquiries for riding roughshod over the fundamental rights and freedoms of their own populations.<\/p>\n

        The UN machinery has grown too old and detached to remember \u2018The Peoples\u2019 it is supposed to serve. Worse, it continues to betray its own purposes and principles. It has become a self-serving system<\/a>. It doesn\u2019t care if \u2018We The Peoples\u2019 ignore its Summit, oppose or embrace it. We are not supposed to be part of the process, just its subjects as it forges a world in the image of those we once thought we had defeated.<\/p>\n

        This is the last part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations and its agencies in designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future<\/a> in New York on September 22nd-23rd 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development and human rights. Previous articles are accessible on <\/em>Brownstone Journal:<\/em><\/p>\n