Thoughts on economics and liberty

My complaint to the International Criminal Court against the policies of Daniel Andrews and Scott Morrison

Have lodged a few minutes ago. Sharing:

DOWNLOAD:  WORD | PDF

I have received an acknowledgement on 17 November 2020 from the ICC but I’m informed in the email that I can’t disclose its contents.

50 POINT SUMMARY OF MY COMPLAINT 

The basic framework of human rights and ethics that underpins public health

  1. Nature is not always our friend. From time to time, it springs an unpleasant surprise, like this novel coronavirus. Public health interventions do the right thing when they minimise the loss of life from such natural causes (Acts of Nature) without causing additional mental or physical harms (Act of Man).
  2. While humanity can to accept unavoidable deaths from a natural cause, we cannot accept government mandates that end up killing even one additional person. That is because while any economic harms can be compensated, we can never compensate anyone for any mental harms or the loss (or shortening) of life from such measures.
  3. The public health literature is keenly aware that its actions must not cause harm. For instance, there is requirement in the literature to compensate for even minor economic harms caused by public health measures.
  4. This threshold underpins all valid government policy: That the policy must not directly harm anyone. Governments do not have the power to kill person X (or shorten his life) while trying to save person Y. No government is authorised by the laws, for instance, to burn down additional homes and kill unaffected people in order to save those who might be at risk of being engulfed in a bushfire.
  5. In relation to this ongoing pandemic, if killing X (through additional suicides, cancer or heart disease not identified in time because of terror caused by government, and from increased poverty) in order to save Y (generally an elderly person well beyond average life expectancy) from COVID-19 was such a good idea, then this strategy would have formed part of the laws and pandemic plans across the world.
  6. This threshold question distinguishes genuine public health from public health terrorism. Public health interventions that cause widespread additional mental and physical harms and shorten the lifespan of hundreds of millions, even billions, can only be classified as public health terrorism.
  7. There is a long and well-understood history of human rights abuses, hysterias and exaggerated claims made by public health practitioners (e.g. “culture of fear” and “exaggerated claims … from disease advocacy by influenza experts”, noted in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2011[1]).
  8. International and national laws are designed to prevent public health excesses.

Unimpeachable proof that flu-like pandemics can be managed without committing crimes

  1. It is not only ethically and legally valid, but perfectly feasible to implement well-balanced and non-criminal public health policies even in the face of severe pandemics and great uncertainty.
  2. As noted at the outset, Gauden Galea, the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s representative in China said on 24 January 2020 regarding Wuhan’s lockdown, that: “The lockdown of 11 million people is unprecedented in public health history”.[2]
  3. Never in the past during any flu-like virus pandemic – which were often much worse than the current one – have the kinds of inhumane and reckless policies that we are seeing this time around been considered, let alone implemented.
  4. Even this time, we have unimpeachable proof that sensible policies can be implemented during pandemics. Sweden, led by perhaps the world’s most experienced epidemiologist, Dr Anders Tegnell, has demonstrated that it is quite possible – mainly through voluntary guidelines and light-handed closure of targeted events or workplaces – to deal with the ongoing respiratory virus pandemic without causing additional harms to people’s mental or physical health.
  5. Policy applied by Sweden this year is not unique to that nation. Such policy is embedded in all the laws of the world, all ethical principles, and was part of all approved pandemic plans across the world – including in Victoria and Australia: plans that were designed and thus capable of managing respiratory virus pandemics far worse than what we are experiencing from this novel coronavirus.
  6. While the size of the pandemic is irrelevant to the arguments, the Australian authorities seem to be behaving like exorcists fighting an imaginary spook. They decided in March 2020 that this virus is “deadly” and that they must exorcise Australia from it, regardless of the fact since April 2020 we know that it is nowhere as deadly even as the Asian and Hong Kong flu. And if the data deceptions and confusions (about PCR tests, conflation of COVID and flu, assuming COVID deaths) are taken into account, it is hard to say that this pandemic is far worse than a bad flu. Data from Sweden suggests that it might be somewhat hard at the end of 2020 to distinguish this year’s total deaths in that country from the average of the past five years.

Lockdowns, curfews, mass-testing and other mandates for flu-like viruses are contrary to science

  1. Respiratory viruses like flu and the common cold (of which this novel coronavirus is one) have characteristics which lead to certain types of public health policies and rule out others.
  2. SARS-CoV2 has strong similarities with the flu in both transmission and lethality (as well as symptoms). Its first cousin, SARS, was far more lethal and did not transmit asymptomatically. As a result, targeted quarantines were able to not only isolate SARS, they were able to eradicate it: SARS disappeared without a trace after 2004, perhaps because the virus found nowhere else to go after it killed its hosts who had already been isolated.
  3. The WHO, through its October 2019 guidelines[3] laid down the state of knowledge on how we should deal with flu-like viruses. For instance, the WHO’s guidelines state that quarantines, mass-scale testing and contact tracing are not appropriate in this case, and lockdowns are not even a possible consideration.
  4. Community-wide cordons (lockdowns) were last used for Ebola (a virus which kills up to 90% of those infected) in 2014 in Africa. An evaluation of these lockdowns found that even for such a virus, only “very small-scale cordons” – similar to quarantine – were effective; not large-scale lockdowns.
  5. When large-scale lockdowns are unscientific and unethical even for a lethal virus like Ebola, the concept of lockdowns being applied for a flu-like virus simply does not exist.
  6. Lockdowns, being untargeted, cannot eradicate SARS-Cov2 from the Earth. They merely slow down the development of immunity among younger people who could then have acted as barriers to the spread of disease. Further, there are innumerable voluntary and better ways to “flatten the curve” should the health system ever come under pressure. (There was no pressure, ever, on Victoria’s health system.)
  7. “Scientists” who claim that lockdowns “work” neither know the science nor understand the meaning of “work”. The existence of a “flat-earthers” who have been trying to go against the well-established science of flu-like pandemics during 2020 does not make them right.
  8. Masks have been shown in the scientific literature to be potentially helpful in limited medical settings but have never been proven through randomized controlled trials (RCT) to be helpful for use by the general population, let alone on a mandatory basis; and can cause great harms, instead.

Imposing such unscientific measures is an unethical human experiment forbidden by the laws

  1. To impose coercive lockdowns, curfews, mass-scale testing and mandatory masks for the general population for a flu-like virus – “measures” that have been specifically ruled out by the science – amounts to the conduct of a human experiment that has never been approved by any ethics process and which breaches an extensive range of laws – including many international laws.
  2. Such measures cannot be justified by the “precautionary principle” either, since it is not a precaution in the face of incomplete knowledge to administer a well-known poison (lockdowns). Further, any claim of incomplete knowledge might have been valid on 15 March 2020 but was not tenable by 15 April 2020, by which time abundant knowledge about the nature and risk of this virus had become available.
  3. Most “public health” measures used by the Accused (such as lockdowns, curfews and mandatory mask mandates) are grossly disproportionate as well as ill-targeted to the nature and risk presented by the virus, and thus contravene public health laws and international covenants. Moreover, since the pandemic never managed to apply even a Scenario 1 level of pressure upon the health system in Australia (as identified in Australia’s pandemic plan), there can be nothing more disproportionate than these “public health” measures.
  4. To ensure compliance with their illegal “public health” measures it was necessary for the Victorian Administering Authorities to not only create a Police State (with extreme brutality meted out on numerous occasions), but to also create mass hysteria so the people remain in a state of terror. As a result of State-created terror, many Victorians did not get themselves checked for essential health conditions including mental and physical, thus leading to enormous human harms from these policies. Many have died unattended at home. The lives of millions of others have been shortened.

The mental model of the Accused: to shift life from the young to the old

  1. The Accused know very well that the people – particularly the youth – are paying a very high price for their virus eradication goals.
  2. But the Accused have a mental model according to which it is OK to “sacrifice” the young in order to save even one elderly person from COVID death: “Even one loss of life from COVID is too many” has been their motto. The Accused have been actively trying to “shift” life from the young to the old.
  3. After one year of this virus, 17 out of 100,000 persons on Earth have died from or with this virus. Most of these 17 were the extreme elderly, aged well beyond the average life expectancy for their country. It is these elderly people whom the governments are attempting to give a few more months of life – at the cost (that they are aware of) of many months, even years, taken out from the life of those whom the virus would never have even mildly impacted.
  4. Further, because most of the young whose life has been shortened don’t die immediately, the Accused are able to claim that they have been successful in “saving” lives by citing discredited “models”.

The 2020 lockdowns have increased even COVID-19 deaths

  1. Many studies are showing that the 2020 lockdowns have not saved any elderly lives from COVID. Instead, a comparative analysis of deaths per million in the US, UK and Sweden over the past year shows that lockdowns have increased COVID deaths.
  2. This seemingly counter-intuitive result is plausible because lockdowns:
    • dissipate scarce resources by trying to prevent the spread of the virus to low risk groups and not focusing sufficiently on cocooning the elderly; and
    • stop the development of immunity among the young who could then have acted as barriers to the spread of disease. Herd immunity is a law of nature for all infectious disease. Respiratory viruses peak fairly quickly, with those who’ve recovered becoming immune, which then makes it hard for the virus to infect others. Lockdowns do not allow herd immunity to develop which means the virus continues to spread – and wreak havoc on the elderly.
  3. Another reason why deaths of the elderly have not been averted is that Australian government authorities have literally burnt hundreds of billions of dollars on futile activities (first stopping the young from going to work and then paying them through vast borrowing) but did not even provide health workers with N95 masks, which led to 3,500 of them getting infected by the virus and transmitting to the elderly in hospitals and aged care centres.

The Accused have continued their actions despite concerns being repeatedly raised

  1. The Victorian Administering Authorities had comprehensive knowledge of the harms that lockdowns and their hysteria-rousing policies can cause – for these are well-documented in the scientific and ethical literature, apart from being impossible to arrive at through any risk-based policy making process – but they have refused to acknowledge and formally assess these harms.
  2. The Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has publicly brushed aside my views as just my “opinion”. The Chief Health Officer of Victoria has not only refused to answer any questions but has blocked me on his taxpayer-funded Twitter account. They are driving Victoria into a ditch blindfolded. They do not want any discussion of the harms.
  3. The Victorian Administering Authorities recklessly and arbitrarily continue to ride roughshod over proportionality requirements and human rights embedded in the laws in their belief that every Victorian needs to stay locked down till a vaccine is punched into all of us. This belief, which is at loggerheads with international and domestic Australian laws, is not amenable to any reasoning.
  4. Mr Morrison and Mr Andrews do not trust the people of Australia. Had they followed their original pandemic plans, they would have implemented mainly voluntary measures and educated the community. Instead, they chose to stand “over and above” the People and use force.
  5. It is not just the Victorian and Australian Administering Authorities that are responsible for these crimes against humanity. Political parties in Australia from both sides of the spectrum are hands-in-glove about the breaches of the laws. Further, the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria have provided their stamp of approval respectively on border closures within Australia and the curfew that was till recently in place in Melbourne.

The enormous cost to health and life of these illegal public health measures

  1. The harms arising from public “health” measures such as lockdowns, in terms of lost life-years, have been estimated to be many orders of magnitude greater than any lives the lockdowns could possibly have saved (they do not save lives, as noted above).
  2. But even making such a comparison is incorrect since a virus is an Act of Nature while lockdown deaths are an Act of Man – hence must be treated as a crime. Each additional mental harm caused and each additional life-year reduced by the policies of the Victorian and Australian Administering Authorities adds up to cause what is best described as a crime against humanity.
  3. I have estimated that lockdowns across the world have shortened the lives of hundreds of millions of people, including people like me who have been forced into an extremely unhealthy condition for many months, a situation from which the harm done to the body (or mind in many cases) can never fully recover.
  4. These harms are not protected by Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute. These harms were not “inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions” because the actions were themselves unlawful, having breached all considerations of proportionality and scientific proof. Any authorization to kill (or shorten the life of) person X in order to protect person Y necessarily had to be obtained in advance from the People of Victoria through the Parliament, though legislation. No such legislation exists.
  5. Should the Accused deny causing the harms – which are real and which I document in this complaint – then the burden of proof must be placed on them to prove that these harms have not been caused by their There is no way that so many harms would have been caused by voluntary measures aimed at flattening the curve, instead of the coercive measures used as part of the strategy of aggressive suppression or eradication.
  6. Sweden’s results in terms of deaths per million from the COVID disease are superlative in comparison to many nations that imposed coercive lockdowns, thus demonstrating that it is possible to minimise harms from the virus to the elderly without causing additional “collateral” damage while trying to save people from what is basically a natural disaster. But even if Sweden’s results were not that great, it would not change the argument in this complaint since the core issue is that Sweden did not cause additional harms, while Victoria did.
  7. It also doesn’t matter if a vaccine is ultimately found and some lives are then saved in Australia. Those who wish to wait for a vaccine have always been free to do so, voluntarily. But the idea that a Government can forcibly lock up an entire nation for months, even years – as if the People are the private farm animals of the Government – and then coercively jab these People (most of whom would never have been adversely affected by the coronavirus anyway) is nothing short of criminal. The People are not the private Animal Farm of Australia’s politicians.
  8. There have been many supplementary offences committed by the Accused to support their government-created hysteria and terror, such as the use of PCR tests which are formally acknowledged by the Australian government to be unreliable. There are also very serious data integrity issues regarding the reported COVID deaths.

The International Criminal Court’s role in stopping these crimes

  1. When institutions of redress in Australia have failed, and almost the entire leadership of society is intent on committing (or supporting) mass-scale crimes, the only resort left to humanity is the International Criminal Court.
  2. There is little point in having so many laws to protect human rights and policies and plans based on science and ethics if, when a minor pandemic comes upon us, all these are tossed out of the window. Today, many of Australia’s politicians, business leaders, media and perhaps even the courts, are supporters of tribalism and fear.
  3. The battle today is effectively the biggest fight for liberty and human rights since slavery and colonialism. The ICC must play its role, perhaps the most important role it will play in this generation, by drawing a sharp line between what is acceptable as a public health measure and what is public health terrorism.
  4. Without this sorry episode being declared a crime against humanity and the genie of public health terrorism being locked up inside its bottle forever, such extremism will happen again, and yet again.

[1] https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/

[2] Senger, Michael P., ‘China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign’, Tablet, 16 September 2020. Short URL: https://bit.ly/2RXS0RA.

[3] https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/

 

KEYWORDS

lockdown crimes against humanity, rome statute,

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
3 thoughts on “My complaint to the International Criminal Court against the policies of Daniel Andrews and Scott Morrison
  1. Dee Smart

    Withholding hydroxychloroquine as part of early intervention treatment; officially banning it for periods of time. Signed off by Minister for Health. MURDER!

     
  2. Geane

    Please Add the SA Health Minister & Minister To this Complaint. The lockdown to areas over 500kms away was Reckless, Uneducated & Unlawful.Based on A Lie.I Started a job on Monday-Done by Wednesday. Masks don’t Protect/Cant go Outside – Unlawful

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *