Extra Notes on Human Rights
Violations of human rights
WHEREAS, administering, mandating, promoting and or encouraging experimental medical
and or PIs and/or NPIs without obtaining lawful fully informed consent from the individual,
freely given in accordance with International, European and UK laws and UK case law, is a
prima facie breach of fundamental, inalienable human rights, including, but not limited to thefollowing:
the right to life,
the right to bodily integrity,
the right not to be tortured, degraded or given inhumane
treatment andthe right to provide informed consent freely given in accordancewith the rule of law and medical ethics,
the right to privacy
the right to a family life
It is unlawful, illegal, immoral and unethical - see, inter alia, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board (2015) (above); andWHEREAS, violations of human rights not only contribute to and exacerbate poor health, but
for many (including children, individuals with disabilities and other vulnerable individuals) the
health care and education settings presents a risk of heightened exposure to human rights
abuses - including coercive or forced medical treatment and procedures, pharmaceutical andnon-pharmaceutical interventions - in breach of the Rule of Law; andInternational, European and UK Human Rights laws
WHEREAS, the international law regarding human rights is set out in a number of Internationallaws. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (the "UDHR") states,inter alia:"WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable
rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice andpeace in the world,
WHEREAS disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts
which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in whichhuman beings shall enjoy freedom of speech, and belief and freedom from fear andwant has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common purpose,
WHEREAS, it is essential, if man is not compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should beprotected by the rule of law,
WHEREAS, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter affirmed their faithin fundamental human rights, in the dignity andworth of the human person andin the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
WHEREAS Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with
the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of humanrights and fundamental freedoms,
WHEREAS a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest
importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims this UNIVERSALDECLARATION 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."
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html ; andHuman Rights - All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
WHEREAS, Article 1 of the UDHR states:"All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards each other inthe spirit of brotherhood."; andHuman Rights - the Right to Self-Determination.
WHEREAS, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (the"ICCPR") states:"All peoples have the right to self-determination.
By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx; andHuman Rights - Everyone is entitled to ALL the rights and freedoms set out in Internationallaw.
WHEREAS, Article 2 of the UDHR states:"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.""Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any otherlimitation of sovereignty."
This includes the UK.; andHuman Rights - the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The right to life and the right to security of person includes the right not to be experimented
upon without providing informed consent, freely given. Medical treatment and procedures
includes face masks, testing, vaccines/medical devices, isolation/quarantining/social
distancing measures. The right to liberty includes the rights of the freedom to refuse toconsent to be experimented upon or to receive medical treatments or procedures, freedomof movement, of association, of speech and of beliefs, and of other liberties. The current

school mandates for masks, testing and the policy of vaccinations at schools, the propaganda,
teaching materials, coercive and other psychological and emotional techniques being used toobtain consent, is a prima facie breach of Article 3 of the UDHR. The provision of medical
treatment or medical procedures without obtaining informed consent, freely given amounts
to a prima facie breach of Article 3 of the UDHR.; andHuman Rights - the Right to Life shall be protected by law.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR, is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights("ECHR") in Article 2. the "Right to Life" :"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in theexecution of a sentence of a court following his conviction for acrime for which this penalty is provided by law."
The right to life cannot be derogated from under the UDHR - save in the execution of asentence of a court following his/her conviction for a crime for which this penalty is provided
by law. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, there is no right to derogate from the Right to Life - otherthan in lawful acts of war. NOTE: there is no right to derogate from the Right to Life during apublic health emergency
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf; andHuman rights - the Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the Right to Life.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 2 of the ECHR, are enshrined in Article 6 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) which states, inter alia:"Article 6.
1.

Every human being has the inherent right to life.
This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

3.

When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of
genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shallauthorise any State Party to the present Covenant toderogate in any way from any obligation assumed under
the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide."; andHuman Rights - the Right not to be subject to Torture, Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
treatment or punishment.

WHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR states:"No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhumane ordegrading treatment or punishment."; andHuman Rights - the Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
without his or her free consent.
WHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (1966) (the "ICCPR"), which states:"Article 7.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane ordegrading treatment or punishment.
In particular, no one shall be subjected without his freeconsent to medical or scientific experimentation."
No right to derogate even "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of thenation."Under Article 4 of the ICCPR, there is no right to derogate from Article 7 - even "in time of
public emergency which threatens the life of the nation".
"Article 4.2.
"No derogation from articles ....7...."
Article 5 of the ICCPR states:"Article 5.
1.

Nothing in this present Covenant may be interpreted as
implying for any State, group or person any right toengage in any activity or perform any act aimed at thedestruction of any of the rights and freedoms
recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent
than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2.

There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from anyof the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in
any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law,
conventions, regulations or customs to the pretex that the
resent Covenant does not recognize such rights or thatit recognizes them to a lesser extent." ; andp

The Siracusa Principles - limitation and derogation provisions of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights
WHEREAS, in 1984, the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists(AAICJ) held an international colloquium in Siracusa, Italy, which was co-sponsored by theInternational Commission of Jurists. The focus of the colloquium was the limitation andderogation provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and theoutcome is a document that is referred to as the Siracusa Principles. The introductory note to
the Siracusa Principles commences in the following terms:"It has long been observed by the American Association for the International
Commission of Jurists (AAICJ) that one of the main instruments
employedbygovernments to repress and deny the fundamental rights and freedoms of peoples has
been the illegal and unwarranted Declaration of Martial Law or a State of Emergency.
Very often these measures are taken under the pretext of the existence of a"public emergency which threatens the life of a nation" or "threats to national
security".
The abuse of applicable provisions allowing governments to limit or derogate fromcertain rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
has resulted in the need for a closer examination of the conditions and grounds for
permissible limitations and derogations in order to achieve an effective
implementation of the rule of law.
The United Nations General Assembly has frequently emphasised the importance ofa uniform interpretation of limitations on rights enunciated in the Covenant."
https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legalsubmission-1985-eng.pdf
Paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles - Non-Derogable Rights - These rights are notderogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of thenation.
WHEREAS, Paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles under the heading of Non-Derogable
Rights provides:"No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation,
derogate from the Covenant's guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture,
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical orscientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or
involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual debt; the rightnot to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal
legislation; the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law; andfreedom of thought, conscience and religion.
These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose ofpreserving the life of the nation." (emphasis added)."; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the Court held that paragraph 58 of the Siracusa Principles
is consistent with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the"ICCPR"), stating, inter alia:[127] This is consistent with Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andHuman Rights - the Right not to be forced to undergo a medical intervention without his or
her consent.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the ICCPR is enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine:
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No 164) (1997), Oviedo, Spain (the"Oviedo Convention"). The Oviedo Convention is a legally internationally binding instrumenton the protection of human rights in the medical field. It sets out fundamental principles
applicable to daily medical practice and is regarded as such at the European treaty on patient's
rights. Chapter II - Consent, Article 5 - General rule states, inter alia:"Article 5.
34.

General ruleThis article deals with consent and affirms at theinternational level an already well-established rule, that isthat no one may in principle be forced to undergo anintervention without his or her consent.
Human beings must therefore be able freely to give or
refuse their consent to any intervention involving theirperson.
This rule makes clear patient's autonomy in theirrelationship with health care professionals and restrains
the paternalistic approaches which might ignore the wishof the patient.
The word "intervention" is understood in its widest sense,
as in Article 4 - that is to say, it covers all medical acts, inparticular interventions performed for the purpose of
preventative care, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation or
research."

35.

"The patient's consent is considered to be free andinformed if it is given on the basis of objective informationfrom the responsible health care professional as to thenature and the potential consequences of the plannedintervention or of its alternatives, in the absence of anypressure from anyone.
In order for their consent to be valid the persons inquestion must have been informed about the relevantfacts regarding the intervention being contemplated.
This information must include the purpose, nature andconsequence of the intervention and the risks involved
Information on the risks involved in the intervention or in
the alternative courses of action must cover not only therisks inherent in the type of intervention contemplated,but also any risks related to the individual characteristics
of each patient, such as age or the existence of otherpathologies.
Requests for additional information made by patients
must be adequately answered.
36.

Moreover, this information must be sufficiently clear andsuitably worded for the person who is to undergo theintervention.
The patient must be put in a position, through the use ofterms he or she can understand, to weigh up thenecessary or usefulness of the aim and methods of theintervention against its risks and the discomfort or pain it
will case.

37.

In some cases, however, for example invasive diagnostic
acts or treatments, express consent may be required.
Moreover, the patient's express, specific consent must be
obtained for participation in research.

38.

Freedom of consent implies the consent may be
withdrawn at any time and that the decision of the person
concerned shall be respected once he or she has been
fully informed of the consequences."

https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98; andWHEREAS, Article 5 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 3. the "Right to Prohibitionof torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment":"Article 3.
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment."; andThis includes the right not to be experimented upon without providing informed consent,
freely given. (see, for example, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (1966) above). The provision of medical treatment or medical procedures and/or
conducting psychological manipulation/warfare, without obtaining informed consent freely
given, amounts to a prima facie breach of Article 5 of the UDHR and Article 3 of the ECHR, andunder Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Under Article
15 of the ECHR, there is no right to derogate from the prohibition of torture or to inhumaneor degrading treatment - not even in acts of war as such act would be unlawful under the War
Conventions, nor in a public health emergency, even if it's threatening the life of the nation.;andIN TIMES OF EMERGENCY

WHEREAS, the ECHR, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - states:"1.

In time of war or other public health emergency threatening the life of thenation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its
obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by theexigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are notinconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from
Articles 3 ["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision."

This means that the right to life [Article 2 of the ECHR, Article 3 of the UDHR], cannot bederogated from in a so-called public health emergency. Even in times of war, the right toderogate is limited to "lawful acts of war", not unlawful ones.
This also means that the right to "Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment" [Article 3 of the ECHR, Article 5 of the UDHR ], cannot be derogated from undera public health emergency - even if it is threatening the life of a nation.
In respect of other rights listed in the ECHR, the right to derogate is limited to those measuresthat are STRICTLY required. However, the measures taken must not be inconsistent with otherobligations under international [and European and UK] law. Any act/omission by you, theschool, its employees, agents, or others which derogates from the child/child's, parent/s,
grandparent/s, or others right to life, is a prima facie breach of Article 2 of the ECHR, in
addition to Article 3 of the UDHR; andDISCRIMINATION
Human Rights - the Right to be recognised everywhere as a person before the law.
WHEREAS, Article 6 of the UDHR states:"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
Refusing to recognise an individual's fundamental, inalienable human rights, whether set out
in the UDHR or in other laws, is a prima facie breach of Article 6 of the UDHR; andWHEREAS, Article 6 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 16 of the ICCPR, which states:"Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.";
andHuman Rights - the Right to Equal Protection of the law against any discrimination in
violation of international law.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR states:"All are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discriminationin violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
This Article enshrines the legal maxim that "all are equal before the law" and no one is above
the Rule of law. As such, discrimination - including incitement to discrimination - in violationof the UDHR, is a prima facie breach of Article 7 ; andWHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Part II of the ICCPR, which states:"Part II
1.

Each State Party to the present Convention undertakes to respect and toensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction therights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind suchas race, colour, sex, language, religious, political or other opinions, national orsocial origin, property, birth or other status."

Article 7 of the UDHR is also enshrined in Article 3 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 3.
"The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal
right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set
forth in the present Covenant.";
andWHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 26 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 26.
"All persons are equal before the law and entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law.
In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination andguarantee 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."; andHuman Rights - the Right of the Child not to be discriminated against.
WHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in Article 24 of the ICCPR, which states:"Article 24.
1.

"Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth right to suchmeasures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part ofhis family, society and the State."; andWHEREAS, Article 7 of the UDHR is enshrined in the ECHR in Article 14. the "Prohibition of
discrimination":"Article 14.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shallbe secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Discriminating against an individual on the basis that they cannot or will not wear a mask,take a test or take an experimental COVID-19 vaccine by treating them differently to those
who do wear a mask, take a test or take an experimental COVID-19 vaccine, is a prima facie
breach of Article 14 of the ECHR in addition to Article 7 of the UDHR. Any form of medical
apartheid is in prima facie breach of these Articles.; andWHEREAS, the Fair Work Commission in Australia in the case of Kimber v Sapphire Coast
Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676), stated that all Australians should "vigorously
oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia", andheld it to be an "abhorrent concept" which is "morally and ethically wrong" and that such asystem of medical apartheid is an "antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything wevalue.", inter alia:

[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical
apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethicallywrong, and the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value."
Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andHuman Rights - the Right to a Social and International Order in which their Rights andFreedoms can be fully realized.
WHEREAS, Article 28 of the UDHR states:"Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized."
A failure to provide a social order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR, will
be a prima facie breach of Article 28 of the UDHR. ; andHuman Rights - the Right to Exercise Rights and Freedoms - subject only to such limitations
as are determined by law.
WHEREAS, Article 29 of the UDHR states:"(1)

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free
and full development of his personality is possible.

(2)

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only tosuch limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose 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.".

The limitations do NOT include a right for anyone else to harm another or to breach another'shuman rights, other than in accordance with the law. Any limitations/restrictions to the rights
of individuals set out in the UDHR, can only be imposed if they are "determined by law" andSOLELY for the purpose of "securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedomsof others" AND of meeting the "just requirements" of "morality", "public order" AND the"general welfare" in a "democratic society". In other words, the limitations must be lawful,legal, moral and SOLELY for the purposes set out. It is not legal, lawful or moral to limit anindividual's human rights other than as prescribed. Any limitation/restriction that is not inaccordance with these provisions, is a prima facie breach of the UDHR; andNON-DEROGABLE
Human Rights - the Right not to have Rights and Freedoms destroyed by any activity or act
by a State, group or persons.
WHEREAS, Article 30 of the UDHR states:"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or
persons any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at thedestruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."This enshrines the statutory interpretation that should be applied to the UDHR when
considering the right to derogate/limit/restrict any of the human rights set out therein. ; andWHEREAS, Article 17 - Limitations on use and restrictions of rights, states:"The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shallnot be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have beenprescribed."; andWHEREAS, Article 15 - "Derogation in time of emergency" - ECHR states:"1.

In time of war or other public health emergency threatening the lifeofthenation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations
under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of thesituation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its otherobligations under international law.

2.

No derogation from Article 2 [the "Right to Life"], except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from
Articles 3 ["Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading
treatment", 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under thisprovision.

3.

Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep theSecretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures
which it has taken and the reasons therefore.
It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
when
such
measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being
fully executed."

Given that you, the school, its employees and others are availing yourselves of the right toderogate from Article 2 and Article 3 and other Articles of the ECHR, and the requirement tokeep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe "fully informed" of the measures which
it has taken and the reasons therefore, you are required to provide evidence to the person
whose rights you seek to derogate from. The evidence sought is listed in this Notice ; andActs of Parliament and the Common Law cannot be changed by the executive.
WHEREAS, the ECHR has been incorporated into UK domestic law in the Human Rights Act
1998. There are no emergency derogations to the Human Rights Act for any purpose relating
to an emergency in the UK and the right at common law to valid consent has no emergency
derogations. You, the school, its employees and others, including the courts, cannot therefore
lawfully use the pandemic to claim that any of the human rights engaged should be derogated
for the purposes of the pandemic emergency.
"The executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of
the common law"

Parliament,nor- R Miller v DExEU [2017] UKSC 5.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html; andWHEREAS, the ECHR ensures the need for interventions taken by the Government and Stateto remain "evidence-based" as well as "necessary" and "proportionate". "Proportionate"means balancing the competing interests with "evidence-based" facts: in this case, todetermine whether the UK has a "Public Health Emergency" under which the Government
and the State, you, the School and others are claiming their right to derogate from their
obligations to uphold human rights; whether the implementation of both Non-Pharmaceutical
Interventions (such as Lockdowns, Social distancing, "bubbles", quarantining of healthy
individuals) and Pharmaceutical Interventions (such as the so-called "COVID-19 vaccines", theface masks, the PCR or lateral flow tests) are strictly "necessary" in a democratic society inthe interests of public safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the protection of healthor morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; andAllegation of infringement of inalienable, fundamental human rights.
WHEREAS, infringements and violations of living men, women and children's inalienable,
fundamental rights, civil liberties and freedoms by so-called "pandemic" laws are unnecessary,
unfounded, disproportionate, unreasonable, irrational, unethical, immoral, unconstitutional,
undemocratic, unlawful, illegal under domestic, European and International civil law andcriminal law;
United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing COVID
public health response measures.
WHEREAS, In an article published by Monash University's Castan Centre for Human Rights
Law, the author, Professor the Hon Ken Bell AM QC, considered the COVID guidance issued by
the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights for introducing COVID
response measures consistent with human rights. He provided the following summary:[Requirement for emergency measures that restrict human rights to be "proportionate","necessary" and "non-discriminatory"]:•

International law allows emergency measures in response to significant threats - butmeasures that restrict human rights should be proportionate to the evaluated risk,
necessary and applied in a non-discriminatory way. This means having a specificfocus and duration, and taking the least intrusive approach possible to protect publichealth.

[Requirement for emergency powers to only be used for "legitimate" public health goals]:•

With regard to COVID-19, emergency powers must only be used for legitimate publichealth goals, not used as a basis to quash dissent, silence the work of human rights
defenders or journalists, deny other human rights or take any other steps that are
not strictly necessary to address the health situation.

[Requirement for Governments to inform the public of what the emergency measures are,where they apply, for how long and provide updated information, widely available]:•Governments should inform the affected population of what the emergency
measures are, where they apply and for how long they are intended to remain in
effect, and should update this information regularly and make it widely available.

[Requirement for Governments to ensure a return to life "as normal" and NOT use emergency
powers to "indefinitely" regulate day-to-day life]:•

As soon as feasible, it will be important for Governments to ensure a return to life as
normal and not use emergency powers to indefinitely regulate day-to-day life,
recognising that the response must match the needs of different phases of the crisis."
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/COVID/Academics/Castan_Centre_
and_Prof_Joe.pdf; andLegal opinion re unlawfulness of Public Health Orders and re right to suspend human rights
during states of emergency or disaster.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[173] In summary, the powers to make Public Health Orders (PHOs) cannot lawfully
be used in a way that is punitive, and human rights are not suspended during statesof emergency or disaster.
PHOs, by their nature, are designed and intended for short term use in the event of an
emergency or crisis. They are not intended to be an ongoing vehicle to enforce
significant deprivations of our civil liberties.
The COVID pandemic started over 20 months ago. The time is fast approaching here
the reliance on PHO's will no longer be justified on publichealthgrounds,
particularly where there is such a significant intrusion on civil liberties"

- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re the "necessity" and "reasonableness" of the denial or restrictions on basic
liberties
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[160].. the necessity and reasonableness of the denial or restrictions on basic liberties
must be weighed against a variety of other serious flow on consequences such as thesignificant increase in mental health issues and domestic violence, and against theserious economic damage that has been caused and will continue to be caused by theexisting measures found in the Public Health Orders."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.
Legal opinion re "far less restrictive" and "less intrusive" ways to ensure public health.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that, inter alia:"[164] It should be abundantly clear that there are other, far less restrictive and lessintrusive ways in which we can ensure public health and appropriately address the riskof COVID without resorting to the extreme measures currently in place."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion re "proportionality" of COVID-19 public health measure.
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated that:"[172] The initial predictions of a 60% infection rate from COVID with a 1% death rate
thankfully did not materialise.
It is now time to ask whether the "cure" is proportionate to the risk, and the answer
should be a resounding no.
When deciding now what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in terms of any
response to COVID, governments and employers should actively avoid the hysteria andfear-mongering that is now so prevalent in the public discourse, and which will cloud
rational, fact- based decision making."[173] The current PHOs have moved well past the minimum necessary toachieve public health aims, and into the realm of depravation.
It is not proportionate, reasonable or necessary to "lock out" those who areunvaccinated and remove their ability to work or otherwise contribute to society."; and- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021.; andLegal opinion that mandating or blanket rules regarding vaccines for everyone FAILS the testof "proportionality", "necessity" and "reasonableness"
WHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court stated, held that, inter alia:"[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across awholeprofession or industry, regardless of the actual risk, fail the test of proportionality,
necessity and reasonableness.
It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot bejustified on health grounds.
It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should besoundly rejected by courts when challenged."- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021; andWHEREAS, in the case of Kimber, the court held that, inter alia:"[146] Finally, it should be clearly understood that employers who mandate
vaccinations will be liable for any adverse reactions their workers may experience,
given this is a foreseeable outcome for some people,";- Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2672) Australian Fair Work
Commission, Sydney, 27th September 2021. ; andExpert legal opinion on requirement to be "particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties andhuman rights"
WHEREAS, in an article recently published by two Senior Lecturers from the Faculty of Law at
Monash University entitled "Wars, Pandemics and Emergencies What can history tell us about
executive power and surveillance in times of Crisis", the authors concluded that "in an
emergency, we must be particularly vigilant to protect civil liberties and human rights
against incursions that are more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat thecrisis..."; https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/07-NgGray.pdf; andHuman Rights - the Right to an Effective Remedy.
WHEREAS, the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"), contains the following
human rights, inter alia:

Article 13. the "Right to an effective remedy":"Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in thisConvention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."(emphasis added).
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf; andWHEREAS, you are therefore required to provide evidence that the measures you have
employed are "necessary" "legitimate" "reasonable" and "proportionate", "evidence-based"and "least restrictive" as weighed against the harm that is being caused by these measures
such as:a. the increase in mental health issues ;b. the increase in domestic violence issues ;c. the increase in financial and economic loss;
d. the increase in suicides - "deaths of despair";e. the increase in learning and other difficulties;
and issues of the child/children, the family of the child/children, employees and others
affected by your measures; andWHEREAS, infringement of human rights may incur liabilities on the enforcers, promotors
and/or administrators of such infringements for harm, loss, suffering, injury and/or deathcaused by actions and/or omissions;
Sanctions for breach of Human Rights - the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
No.680
WHEREAS, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations
2020 No. 680, states, inter alia:"6.2.

The Sanctions Act establishes a legal framework which enables
Her Majesty's Government (HMG) to continue to give effect tothose sanction regimes and to introduce other new sanctions
regimes. Section 1 of the Sanctions Act enables sanctions
regulations to be made for the purposes of compliance with
United Nations obligations and other international obligations, as well as for anumber of other purposes which include:
promoting compliance with international human rights law
and respect for human rights...or promoting respect for
democracy, the rule of law and good governance.""What is being done and why?
7.1.

HMG seeks to champion human rights, good governance and the rule oflaw. Serious human rights violations by State actors, and similar conduct bynon-State actors, leads to unstable and less prosperous societies. Such
conduct perpetuates violent conflict, creates a world where terrorism
flourishes and where democratic institutions are weakened.
It has a devastating impact on individuals and places the safety of
individuals and societies at risk.
Successfully deterring such conduct would help create fairer
and more just societies, which support the long-term global
conditions most conducive to security, economic growth and thesafety of all.
7.2

This instrument will enable HMG to designate persons who are involved incertain activities which, had they been carried out by or on behalf of a State
within the territory of that State, would amount to a serious violation bythat State of certain human rights.
These are:an individual’s right to life;
an individual’s right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment; andan individual’s right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or
required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Such persons are able to be designated for the purpose of a travel ban or an
asset freeze. The designation of such persons is intended to deter, andprovide accountability for, such activities. The activities could be carried out
by a State or a non-State actor. "(emphasis added)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/680/pdfs/uksiem_20200680_en.pdf; and