If officials around the world extended the lockdowns for political reasons, that constitutes a crime against humanity according to the U.N. definition.

Posted on by James T
Tyler S. Farley

With several countries finally ending their useless and deadly lockdown restrictions, it’s time that people may finally begin to reflect on how truly damaging they were.

I won’t go into the full details and accounting of how deadly the lockdowns have been. Most of the readers of this site already know all of the statistics. From increases in poverty, mental health issues, divorce, drug overdoses, and deaths overall, the list goes on and on and the death toll from the lockdows will end up being well into the millions.

But there’s another issue that I’m sure you’re also aware of. That’s the fact that many officials had ulterior motives for starting the lockdowns and keeping them going as long as they did.



Here in America, the extended lockdowns clearly helped the establishment to implement nationwide mail-in voting without any real debate on the subject. They totally circumvented the legislative process due to loopholes caused by “emergency powers” that state governors gave themselves.

Those states have wanted to have mail-in voting for years. So it’s not at all a stretch that they saw extending the lockdowns as a means to that end.

Then of course you have the entire “Build Back Better” crowd that has installed itself around the world. These people were eager to usher in new policies tied to the Great Reset, and the lockdowns gave them the perfect excuse to accelerate their plans.

But as I said, readers of this site are well aware of all of that.



However, this brings up a very serious question and that is the idea that if the lockdowns were partially intentional for reasons other than to stop covid, does that constitute a crime against humanity?

Shockingly, it seems as though it does.

According to the U.N., a crime against humanity can be defined as the following under the Rome Statute of 1998.

Article 7
Crimes Against Humanity

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
    1. Murder;
    2. Extermination;
    3. Enslavement;
    4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    6. Torture;
    7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    9. Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10. The crime of apartheid;
    11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
  2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
    1. ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

Elements of the crime

According to Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity do not need to be linked to an armed conflict and can also occur in peacetime, similar to the crime of genocide. That same Article provides a definition of the crime that contains the following main elements:

  1. A physical element, which includes the commission of “any of the following acts”:
    1. Murder;
    2. Extermination;
    3. Enslavement;
    4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5. Imprisonment;
    6. Torture;
    7. Grave forms of sexual violence;
    8. Persecution;
    9. Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10. The crime of apartheid;
    11. Other inhumane acts.
  2. A contextual element: “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”; and
  3. A mental element: “with knowledge of the attack”

 

So as you can see above, some aspects of the lockdowns do seem to fit the definition of a crime against humanity.



The key here is that millions have died as a result of the lockdowns. It is also clear that many officials used the lockdowns to benefit their own political motivations.

According to the U.N., the crime does not have to be explicitly stipulated by those committing it.

In addition, Article 7(2)(a) of the Rome Statute determines that crimes against humanity must be committed in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit an attack. The plan or policy does not need to be explicitly stipulated or formally adopted and can, therefore, be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.



It seems that it would not be a stretch at all to label many of the lockdown practices as a crime against humanity. Especially when their effectiveness and harm became apparent, yet they were extended for months and even years beyond that point, mostly to benefit those in power.

At least according to the U.N., that clearly qualifies a crime against humanity.

 

Note: We’ve started publishing articles on Substack shortly after they appear here. It’s free and we’re doing it since some readers enjoy visiting and subscribing to their favorite content on Substack. If you’re interested, you can click here to visit and subscribe. Thanks!