If this is what the Conservative stalwarts are saying about the subversive faction that has hijacked their Party and the government of the country, then it’s getting pretty darn serious.
In light of todays revelations about the potential catastrophe shaping up from the reckless deployment of a rushed, badly researched, irresponsibly touted and dcviously talked-up vaccine by those selfsame advocates of junk science, then things are starting to look pretty bleak for the Bad Guys who have worked so hard to back-stab our nation.
We think the tribunal the article predicts is very much needed and wanted in order to bring the criminals to justice. It is needed, too, to put, so to speak, a “head on a pike” so as to discourage any other criminals in the future from even thinking about engineering such a subversive operation against the country.
We would only add the following:
The tribunal should also identify and bring to justice Hancock and Johnson’s accomplices, whosoever gave them erroneous or false advice (such as mathematician Ferguson’s egregiously irrepsonsible wild predictions of mass death).
It should also investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the fraud of the PCR tests, which the government knew could not detect a live case of the virus (per ITS OWN WEBSITE) returned false positives by the thousands and as such produced false infection and fatality stats that further contributed to the creation of fear and “justification” for the lockdowns and other measures cited below.
The following well written article says it far better than we ever could.
The Covid Crimes Tribunal
I HAVE been saying for some time that when all this is done, when people have manned up and started opposing and then defeating this Covid-Fascist state, there will be a reckoning.
It will come in the form of the Covid Crimes Tribunal.
Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, will be the first defendant.
He is the chief architect of the Covid-Fascist State, along with the Prime Minister Boris Johnson. There are many collaborators and willing facilitators, and they will be tried also.
Hancock will be charged with the following breaches of the Human Rights Act (I will call them fundamental breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 or ‘wrongs’ for now):
The first and most serious wrong is that in a period between March 23 until [final restriction lifted] he breached Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when he inflicted inhuman and degrading treatment on his own people. Article 3 states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Public authorities including the government must not inflict this treatment on you.
Boris Johnson will be the second defendant. He admitted that ‘cancelling Christmas’ in 2020 would be ‘inhuman.’
Three days later he imposed these restrictions putting all of London in tier 4. This statement in a press conference can be used as evidence against him in the Covid Crimes Tribunal and it will also be used against Hancock.
The first and second lockdowns and tier 4 measures are inhuman and degrading treatment. The Equality and Human Rights Commission explains:
‘Degrading treatment means treatment that is extremely humiliating and undignified. Whether treatment reaches a level that can be defined as degrading depends on a number of factors. These include the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and the sex, age, vulnerability and health of the victim. This concept is based on the principle of dignity – the innate value of all human beings.’
Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson, in closing businesses with very little notice, preventing people from working, banning them from seeing friends and relatives, and banning them from travelling which created internally displaced people fleeing from London, subjected the population to humiliating and undignified treatment.
Between the second lockdown and London entering tier 4 there were approximately only ten days where businesses could operate. Restaurants anticipating being open for Christmas therefore prepared for Christmas, put up Christmas decorations, invested in outdoor heating, changed IT systems for bookings and made their premises ‘Covid-secure’. The government, in forcing them to close their doors and preventing them from operating and their employees from working with just hours’ notice, humiliated them and subjected them to degrading treatment.
Critically, the right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute. This means it cannot be limited or restricted in any way.
Therefore Matt Hancock nor Boris Johnson nor any collaborators cannot rely on the fact that there was ‘allegedly’ a serious health emergency in the form of a pandemic to justify inflicting this inhuman, degrading and humiliating treatment on their population.
Article 3 also prohibits intense mental suffering. Matt Hancock will be charged with inflicting mental suffering on the population in preventing them from working, preventing them from seeing family, preventing children from attending school, pushing a mass testing programme on healthy people and obliging healthy people to get tested and to wear a face covering.
He will be charged with inflicting intense mental suffering on the population by frightening and terrifying them with predictions of mass deaths from Covid-19.
He will be charged with inflicting intense mental suffering on the population by telling healthy people to ‘act like you have the virus’.
He will be charged with inflicting intense mental suffering on the population by terrifying them into believing that healthy people can infect them with Covid-19 when there was no evidence for this.
He will be charged with inflicting inhuman and degrading treatment on students, teenagers and children in ordering them to ‘self-isolate’ away from their family for 14 days should someone they came into contact with test positive for the virus.
The ‘self-isolation’ regime ordered by the government required people to isolate in their rooms with little or no human contact, and meals being left outside the door. All physical contact even with parents or siblings was prohibited. All exercise outdoors was prohibited.
Matt Hancock will be charged with inflicting mental torture on children because the self-isolation regime also applied to children.
Matt Hancock ordered families to prohibit young children from interacting with their parents or siblings, exercise outdoors, eat with their families or attend school.
It is not known how many parents inflicted this treatment on their children on the orders of Matt Hancock and the government but it was unprecedented, cruel, unusual, inhuman and degrading, a clear breach of article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Other wrongs Matt Hancock will be charged with are:
· Breaching Article 5, the right to liberty and security;
· Breaching Article 9, the freedom of religion as places of worship were forced to close and therefore people were denied their right to exercise their religion;
· Breaching Article 11: freedom of assembly was restricted in that all forms of public protest were prohibited;
· Breaching Article 8: respect for private and family life. People were prohibited from seeing family and friends in breach of this right.
Article 5, 9, 11, and 8 do have exceptions and restrictions including one to protect health. No doubt Matt Hancock will use the public health exception as part of his defence. He will claim that the Covid-Fascist regime was justified because there was a pandemic. However, as stated above, he cannot use a public health defence to charges of inflicting inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment, including torture.
Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the care home scandal and neglectfully callous treatment of their residents that continued despite the attention drawn to it.
On October 4 Amnesty International published a report, As if Expendable, highlighting the UK Government’s failure to protect older people in care homes during the Covid-19 pandemic, actively putting their lives at risk, denying inter alia the entry of GPs to them. It concluded that the Government’s response had violated the human rights of the elderly residents and called for an immediate public inquiry to report on care homes by the end of November, specifically before the onset of winter.
This has not happened. There is little doubt that what took place in care homes will probably require a separate tribunal.
We believe that the Covid Crimes Tribunal will be one of the biggest trials of crimes against humanity this century. Matt Hancock will be the first defendant. Boris Johnson will be the second defendant.
This is not a threat. This is a prediction.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.