Is it legal?

I have mentioned before that whatever government says is legal is legal.

However, I believe that the Judicial system could challenge anything at any time.

Unless, the government declares a national emergency and then there are severe restrictions on what the Judicial system can do and what the mainstream media can say.

Any of this sound familiar?

The logic is flawless, governments can do anything they wish but the media and courts would soon stop anything too outlandish. Unless, the government first declare a national emergency.

As I write this on December 1st for publication on December 19th, I am currently living in an ongoing government declared emergency. Thus all government rules, guidelies and suggestions are fully lawful and we can be fined and other such things for any non-compliance.

My Government is led by Boris and opposed by Kier. Unfortunately, Kier opposes nothing. I could blame Boris and I could equally blame Kier. However, I will assume that they are both behaving in accordance with their conscience and in the best interests of society in their opinion. There is no real blame for either of these men. I disagree with both of them as my opinion differs considerably.

Is it legal?

Let us start with ourselves. If an elderly relative or friend wishes us to stay away from them, physically, at Christmas then I would say we ought to allow them to make that decision and honour it. No laws are necessary. No force external to ourselves is necessary. We needn't ask Boris or Kier for their opinion. Our own internal mechanisms of common sense, courtesy and respect would have us maintaining whatever distance our elderly relatives and friends request. We would quite naturally extend the same courtesy to strangers, should we have an idea of what those wishes are.

Each of us is capable, in a moment of peace, to determine our own course of action. Each of us can decide what our personal comfort levels are and communicate them clearly to others. Others can include friends, relatives, police, strangers, Boris and Kier.

Is it legal?

At the end of World War II there was a choice to be made. The winning side could choose to line up all the Nazi people and shoot them. Many favoured this approach. When I say many, I refer to governments. However, we know that we put them on trial instead. The governments stood aside and let the courts decide.

This is extremely important. Government rarely give up any power. In this instance they did. Many of the Nazi people said that they were only following orders. Much like the police of today. Much like other officials who find themselves with a little power over other members of society. Many Nazi people said they were following government guidelines, rules and laws and so were acting legally. The government had a legal right to behave as it did and so what was the problem?

Excellent logic but we are not computers. The Nazi men and women who were on trial were saying that what they did was legal and all we could do was line them up against a wall and shoot them or choose not to. This firing squad method of dealing with the Nazi people was legal too.

A different path was chosen. Now I fully accept that Boris, Kier and others won't be happy about my mention of the Nazi people. Let us be in no doubt, I am clearly stating that I now live in a Nazi flavoured country. We all now live in a Nazi flavoured world.

Is it legal?

There are instances when a government saying something is legal and police enforcing what the government are saying is not actually legal. So, is that what is happening now?

The first answer should be the only one that matters. Does it feel legal to you? If you think yes, then so be it. If you think no, then so be it.

Standing up against the many is always going to be difficult. If this is not for you then don't do it. Simply state that you are not happy, perhaps you are fearful and so I recommend that you simply comply. At some point you may reach your own hard limit and react accordingly. There is no rush or pressure to get to that point.

Is it legal?

In my opinion, whether or not this is legally illegal or legally legal is not my concern. I have clearly stated that I don't FEEL that it is legal and so it isn't. You may feel that it is legal. Fine. I might be wrong or you might be wrong.

The Nuremberg trials determined that the Nazi government acted legally but against the intrinsic laws of humanity. Basically, WWII led to a change in rules that no longer allowed Governments to do as they wished and those who enforced government nonsense were no longer allowed the defence of ‘we were only following the governments guidelines’. Now, is the current thing legally legal or not?

The Nuremberg trials allowed the intentions of the United Nations Charter to be written into law above that of government law. Regardless of emergency measures you always have four rights. Everybody has these four rights. Not just because law above government law says so but because they are inherent human rights. I have them regardless of what anyone or everyone on this planet says or believes, as do you.

The four laws above all government laws are:-

1) freedom from want

I don't understand this one. However, I can interpret it in any manner I choose and argue my case in a court of law if necessary. I shall give you an example of my interpretation. Should my government choose to create a law saying that I must take a vaccine in order to be part of society then I can refuse on the grounds that the law is not legally lawful. I might be wrong but I don't care. I will argue my case to the death.

2) freedom to worship. My interpretation of this one is that I have a right above that of my government to believe whatever I want. For example, should I choose to believe that this national emergency is unnecessary then it is unnecessary. Any laws, rules or guidelines based upon this national emergency can be ignored. I must respect the rights of others to believe that the national emergency is necessary. I do. We all have the freedom to be wrong. We all have the right to be wrong. Again, I am able and happy to fully explain my position to any court of law. That is the purpose of courts of law. (This might not be how they are currently being utilised by our governments.) The courts have a duty to act above and beyond that of government. As determined at the Nuremberg Trials.

3) freedom from fear

I don't understand the first two rules. I have interpreted them in accordance with my core beliefs. You are free to interpret them however you wish. (You may find yourself in a Court of Law explaining your position.)

However, freedom from fear is fully within my area of expertise. My government is behaving in ways to promote their opinions / beliefs / agenda by error of omission or by deliberate intent creating and sustaining fear. I can provide innumerable examples. Only one example is required to provide a legal basis for questioning the legality of any of the governments rules, laws or guidelines. Is it legal? I don't believe that it is and will act accordingly. No government rule, guideline or law will be followed by me whatsoever. I will be happy to discuss my reasons in court and I am happy to be proved wrong, to be declared wrong or to actually be wrong. I will OBVIOUSLY not impose my will over others. Masks and social distancing will be observed by me when in the company of people who wish to comply. That is just obvious.

4) freedom of speech

When the government declared a national emergency, then rules for opposing government came into force. Rules for mainstream media came into force. Rules for twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the rest came into force. ALL THESE LAWS ARE LEGAL BUT OPPOSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Thus all the laws, rules and guidelines are not legally legal.

Is it legal?

No, how can it be? We could simply wait for the Judicial System to acknowledge this basic fact or act in accordance and harmony with our own human natures. Remembering that the Nuremberg Trials have given everyone on the planet four human rights written into law above and beyond any and all government laws.

Our government has legally announced and is legally enforcing a national emergency and they have done this ILLEGALLY, is my honest interpretation of the rules created after WWII.

Many people will be fearful on my behalf and wonder if ‘they’ will they come after me.

Who is this ‘they’? Google? Police? Government? Courts?

All these things are just ideas. The police force is not a person. The government is not a person. The court is not a person. Society is not a person. I am not a member of society. I am a human being and my four intrinsic rights have been recognised as being above government law before I was born.

You may not be aware of the forces discussed in this post and their magnitude. I will say this, those who go against their own human nature will, eventually, be lawfully destroyed by forces beyond their comprehension. This same rule applies to collections and groups of people. Slowly at first and then abruptly.

Will this blog or post be taken down. I don't know. I might get a computer generated letter, again, which I will comply with, again.

Will a member of society argue with me and physically impose their will upon me? I don't know but it seems unlikely.

The real question is, who, when in my presence will choose to unlawfully (and against their own human nature) attempt to impose government folly upon me when they become aware that I am not fearful of either them or their punishments?

Anyone intentionally using fear to control you is breaking law above that of any government. They are breaking both ‘legal law’ and the natural law of human beings

I wrote this for me to read on the 19th of December. You can read it if you wish.

Proceed, or not, entirely at your own risk.

So, what are these risks and how serious are they?

We have a Government which is violating our human rights without any real push back. This emboldens Boris to continue down this path. We can certainly expect more and more human right violations. Where England leads, the world follows. Thus we can expect more and more human right violations the world over. This is just how it is. Each government success in violating our human rights encourages other governments to go just as far if not further.

Our four basic human rights have been listed above and each violation is not just against our human nature but against the law. Our governments are behaving criminally. Boris Johnson may not feel like a criminal. He may feel that he is protecting the vulnerable and weak and God may agree with him. The tier system is a human rights violation and as such is illegal. Needing a vaccine to use what was a publicly available service will be a human rights violation. Deciding how many households I can visit at Christmas is a human rights violation. All human right violations are illegal.

So, how many human rights violations am I able to tolerate? What about you?

I am beyond my limit. My hard limit on human right violations has been exceeded. My government has shown itself to be criminal in nature. Mainstream media is not allowed to discuss this as their / our freedom of speech has been restricted by government. This is also a human rights violation.

Governments do not like to be held accountable for their actions. Boris will feel as though he is a powerful and important man and as such his decisions ought to be final. Well, provided that he does not breach our human rights and his party supports him and the courts do not disagree and he has the consent of the great British public, then he is correct.

Human rights cannot be violated for any reason. Our governments are ignoring human rights for the greater good. Our governments have violated our human rights, are currently violating our human rights and will continue to violate our human rights with ever greater disregard for our human rights.

This is nothing new but governments are not above the law of human rights. Currently, human rights are being ignored. The government are behaving as criminals and encouraging others to endorse and enforce the very same criminal behaviour.

Many will say that when this crisis is over, things will return to normal. This is the message that the governments comms specialists are spending vast sums of our wealth to infuse into the general public. Removing the concept of basic human rights from our minds means that government gets more power over us. Government will see this as a good thing. Having the power over us to get us to behave 'better'. Again, many will say that this is a good thing because of 'reasons'.

This is a very unfortunate state of affairs. Boris may have the very best of intentions but the road to hell is paved with such people. We are very firmly on that road.

Our human rights were paid for with the blood of all those who suffered and died in WWI. After WWI nothing changed and we very quickly found ourselves in WWII. Our human rights were paid for with the blood of all those who suffered and died in WWII. Things changed and we got our human rights written into law above that of any government. Until March 23rd 2020, when we were unlawfully asked / requested / told / ordered into lock-down.

Perhaps our government is being very careful with its use of language. Perhaps in the court of human rights, they can provide official documents proving that each lock-down and tier was only a suggestion or guideline. That the police force had documents suggesting what they could and could not do and any and all human right violations were not authorised by our government. At some point in time, if we do not push back, they will abandon any such notion and the police will be asked and eventually be ordered, to 'go in hard'.

Bit by bit and little by little we are being conditioned to accept that which goes against our human natures. As we continue down this path we will get to match the atrocities of the Nazi people and then easily exceed them.

Now, most people will feel that this is an exaggeration that will 'never happen'. Even if people will accept that human rights violations have taken place and are happening they will happily state that they are justified for the greater good. As ever more human rights violations are forced upon us they will repeat the mantra of hands, face and space or whatever the current government approved chant is. Is this a real problem?

Well, that is the point. It all boils down to what you believe. Critically thinking is all well and good but ultimately all you get for your effort is an opinion. Albeit a very well considered opinion.

My opinion is that it is never acceptable for a government to violate human rights.

Others may feel that we live in exceptional times and that these violations are temporarily acceptable.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion under human law and that is not a problem.

What could be a problem is when an individual in my physical presence attempts to violate any of my human rights. Human beings respect other human beings innate rights. These rights have been granted legal status above that of government law and for good reason.

If you fear a virus then you have either been conditioned into that state of mind, which is a human rights violation. Or you have decided to fear it, which is a human right.

What you cannot do is violate my human right to decide to not to fear you, the virus, the government, the police or some other set of deluded beings who think that human rights are optional. You may believe that your human rights are optional but I have decided that my human rights are not optional and there is nothing you or anyone else can legally do about that.

Please give your own human rights some critical thought.

Consider sharing your thoughts with those you love.

Society does have laws but these are of no significance relative to our human rights.

My personal favourite human right is that one about freedom from fear. I have had bosses who relied heavily on inducing fear in their staff. Now that I understand that this is illegal I look forward to someone in authority attempting the same thing. My response being, 'that this (situation) is a human rights violation'. They will respond automatically and without (critical) thought, something about their job title or government law and I will simply state that, 'human rights are above that of your job title / government laws'. Then I will remain silent and watch their actions intently. I can be very intense with very little effort.

 Previously, I suggested using the phrase, 'none of your business' and seeing how that felt. Those who are comfortable to progress might consider using the following phrase with officials, 'Please explain to me how what you have said / suggested is not a human rights violation.'

That's it. This blog is nearly finished, as is the human race.

By your deeds and actions, feel free to prove me wrong.

********************************************************

This is none of your business but I sent the following email to my government via my local member of parliament on December 2nd 2020

Hello Mr Sheerman 

I am very concerned with a great many things that the government believes it must do for the greater good, in relation to the covid 19 virus.

Could you explain to me how my human rights have not been violated? 

The lock-downs are a human rights violation.

The tier systems are a human rights violation.

Fear mongering is a human rights violation.

Manipulation of data to create fear is a human rights violation

Only one such violation renders the entire government response to covid19 as illegal.

Perhaps you are not aware that we all have four basic human rights that have been written into law above that of any government? 

I expect that you will soon be supplied with a very carefully crafted document and this cleverness will not sway me in my understanding that the government is behaving in a criminal manner and as such I will not adhere to any rules, laws or guidelines that I believe violate my human rights. Fines will not be paid and my day in court will be a waste of limited resources. 

I ask that you consider human rights before you take or don’t take any official action ever.

A decent human being would not need to instructed in this manner. Why are there so few decent human beings in government, the police or the media? Or perhaps the real question is, why are they all being so quiet? 

No need to answer as I already know.

You take care and please feel free to spend your Christmas however you wish. 

David Watkinson