ROBIN Monotti is an architect and human rights advocate who came to public attention for publishing Eric Clapton’s disastrous experience with the AstraZeneca vaccine, his subsequent suspension from Twitter and for co-writing Eric Clapton’s Heart of a Child on the negative effects of lockdowns on mental health.
His mission now is to ‘Save Our Human Rights’. He believes that debate about ‘the science’ has dominated the thinking of those challenging the government’s lockdown and vaccine policies for too long.
Talking to me before Christmas, he told me how worried he was that arguments about the evidence were endless and going nowhere. He explained why he thinks our focus (as sceptics and critics of government policy) is on the wrong place and must shift to the most fundamental issue of all – our threatened fundamental human rights.
The problem, he said to me, is that if we get caught up in a scientific discussion or in medical beliefs about Covid – because Covid has indeed become a faith – we move away from the area that we should be talking about, the one that underlies everything else, which is what we allow to be done to our bodies, to us.
Just in this week we witnessed the boldest and most flagrant attack on human rights so far in Australia with the world’s No 1 tennis player, Novak Djokovic, being treated no better than a drug criminal, deported on the basis of a ‘jab or jail’ diktat. Here in the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, while committing to lift some restrictions, the morally fluid Boris Johnson brazenly defined the new, medically contingent, definition of liberty for this country – setting a medical, not a moral, basis as the benchmark for our so-called freedom.
The government’s long-term strategy for living with Covid-19 will be contingent on it, Johnson said, stating that they’hope and intend to protect our liberty and avoid restrictions in future by relying instead on medical advances – especially the vaccines which have already saved so many lives’.
So our stolen freedom will be returned only in a medically conditional form, a redefinition that flies in the face of the central tenet of the Nuremberg Code that the voluntary consent of the human subject is essential for any treatment.
As Monotti points out, the abuse of our right to bodily autonomy – to protect a person’s capacity to make his or her own decisions in relation to his or her body – can result in multiple discriminations such as limiting freedom to travel, work and even to go shopping. All of these are violations of our fundamental human rights as set out in the 2005 Unesco Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, agreed by 191 nations at the time.
Monotti draws our attention to Article 6 on consent which states:
‘1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
‘2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form 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 adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
‘3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. 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.’
While a large percentage of the world’s population have been mass hypnotised under the guise of a manufactured fear of death from ‘Covid’ infection and of the ‘greater good’ of vaccinations which are not vaccinations, Monotti says, our rights have been forgotten. It is time to shine the torch on them again, namely on bodily autonomy and informed consent. His challenge to anyone who believes that for Covid these rights must be suspended is this:
‘Any rebuttal that these can be suspended needs to be shown to be not proportional to a virus with a comparable mortality rate to a bad year of flu. It also needs to be shown that the given method, vaccination, does not warrant suspension of human rights, because it does not stop either infection or transmission.’ The fact is that no rebuttal can demonstrate such proportionality.
The Monotti mantra, which we should all follow, is this:
Covid does not trump human rights.
Human rights must come before any transitory government threat.
We need to save human rights before the NHS, as the NHS means nothing without human rights.
Without the protection given by our agreed and stated human rights, the virus of totalitarianism lets rip, and it has begun to already.
This is why before Christmas Monotti took his challenge to Unesco itself, questioning human rights violations right outside the UK National Commission’s portals.
You can watch him here – please share – this is as fundamental as it gets.