Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Great Reset

The fundamental crisis with the WHO’s new international pandemic agreement

Published

10 months ago

10 minute read

The WHO’s Managerial Gambit

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Bruce PardyBRUCE PARDY 

The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.

On Friday, Bret Weinstein warned of impending tyranny from the World Health Organization. “We are in the middle of a coup,” the evolutionary biologist and podcaster told Tucker Carlson on X. The WHO’s new pandemic management regime will eliminate sovereignty, Weinstein said, and allow it to override national constitutions.

He’s right about tyranny and coups. But not about sovereignty or constitutions.

Technocrats learned a lot from Covid. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks, and herded them to vaccination clinics. In some countries, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history.

The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.

Under the proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. It will have authority to declare public health emergencies. National governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties…[who] shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors [private citizens and domestic businesses] operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.” Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions, and more will be on the table.

That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO recommendations cannot be directly enforced in American courts. Sovereign nations can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can undertake to tie their own hands and to fashion their domestic laws accordingly.

The WHO proposals are a shell game. The scheme will provide cover to domestic public health authorities. Power will be ubiquitous but no one will be accountable. Citizens will lack control over the governance of their countries, as they already do. The danger that confronts us is still our own sprawling discretionary administrative state, soon to be boosted and camouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy.

When countries make treaties, they make promises to each other. International law may regard those promises as “binding.” But they are not binding in the same sense as a domestic contract. International law is a different animal from domestic law. In Anglo-American countries, the two legal systems are distinct.

International courts cannot enforce treaty promises against unwilling parties in the same way that a domestic court can enforce contractual promises. International law is formalized international politics. Countries make promises to each other when it is in their political interests to do so. They keep those promises on the same criteria. When they don’t, political consequences sometimes follow. Formal legal consequences rarely do.

Nevertheless, the idea is to persuade the public that their governments must obey the WHO. Binding recommendations legitimize the heavy hands of domestic governments. Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties. They will say that WHO directives leave them no choice. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”

During Covid, authorities tried to censor dissenting views. Despite their best efforts, skeptics managed to speak out. They offered alternative explanations in podcasts, videos, declarations, research papers, columns, and tweets. For many people, they were the source of sanity and truth. But next time things may be different. Under the new pandemic regime, countries will commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”

As Weinstein put it, “Something is quietly moving just out of sight, in order that we will not have access to these tools the next time we face a serious emergency. … What [the WHO] wants are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly.”

The WHO documents will not override constitutions in Anglo-American countries. In the United States, the First Amendment will still apply. But the meaning of constitutions is not static. International norms can influence how courts read and apply constitutional provisions. Courts can take account of developing international standards and customary international law. The WHO proposals would not replace or define the meaning of constitutional rights. But they would not be irrelevant either.

The WHO is not undermining democracy. Countries have done that over time by themselves. National governments must approve the new plan, and any can opt out as they wish. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. Not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too. In the end rich countries embraced them anyway. They were keen to virtue-signal and justify their own climate boondoggles. Most can be expected to sign on to the WHO gambit too.

Countries who do so retain the sovereignty to change their minds. But leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the UK belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. But Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want.

Numerous critics have made the same allegations as Weinstein, that the WHO’s regime will eliminate sovereignty and override constitutions. Brownstone writers have done so, for example, here and here. These allegations are easy to dismiss. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, has repeatedly said that no country will cede sovereignty to the WHO. Reuters, the Associated Press, and other mainstream news outlets have done “fact checks” to debunk the claim. Saying that the WHO will steal sovereignty allows critics to be discredited as conspiracy theorists. It distracts from the game that is afoot.

The WHO proposals will protect power from accountability. National governments will be in on the plan. The people are the problem they seek to manage. The new regime will not override sovereignty but that is small comfort. Sovereignty provides no protection from your own authoritarian state.

Author

  • Bruce Pardy
    Bruce Pardy

    Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 11 hours ago

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 14 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Health / 15 hours ago

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Agriculture

Sweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production

Published on November 1, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-293, ‘An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,’ gives sweeping powers to the federal government in the event of a crisis, including the ability to regulate meat production.

The Trudeau Liberals’ “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that the sweeping powers it gives government, particularly over agriculture, have many concerned.

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is soon to pass its second reading in the Senate, which all but guarantees it will become law. Last Tuesday in the Senate, Conservative senators’ calls for caution on the bill seemed to fall on deaf ears. 

“Being from Saskatchewan I have heard from many farmers who are very concerned about this bill. Now we hear quite a short second reading speech that doesn’t really address some of those major concerns they have about the promotion of alternative proteins and about the phase-out, as Senator Plett was saying, of some of their very livelihoods,” said Conservative Senator Denise Batters during debate of the bill. 

Batters asked one of the bill’s proponents, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, how they will “alleviate those concerns for them other than telling them that they can come to committee, perhaps — if the committee invites them — and have their say there so that they don’t have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened?” 

In response, Mégie replied, “We have to invite the right witnesses and those who will speak about their industry, what they are doing and their concerns. Then we can find solutions with them, and we will do a thorough analysis of the issue. This was done intentionally, and I can provide all these details later. If I shared these details now, I would have to propose solutions myself and I do not have those solutions. I purposely did not present them.” 

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.   

Bill C-293 would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”  

It would also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.”  

The bill has been blasted by the Alberta government, who warned that it could “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” as well as allow the “the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.” 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The World Economic Forum, a globalist group with links to the Trudeau government, has as part of its Great Reset agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints.  

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption. 

Continue Reading

MAiD

Quebec set to take euthanasia requests in advance, violating federal law

Published on October 31, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Quebec has the highest rate of MAiD in Canada. The province saw a 17 percent increase in euthanasia deaths in 2023 compared to 2022, with the program claiming the lives of 5,686 people. The high figure represents a staggering 7.3 percent of all deaths in the province, putting Quebec at the top of the list worldwide.

Despite the practice being illegal at the federal level, Quebec says it plans to go ahead with taking euthanasia requests in advance.

In an October 24 post on X, Sonia Bélanger, the Quebec minister responsible for seniors,  announced that the province would be moving forward with taking “advance requests” for euthanasia, called “Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD),” regardless of the policy’s violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

As it stands, in order for a person to be killed by euthanasia in Canada, they must provide “consent” at the time of the procedure. So-called “advance requests” would allow a person to approve their killing at a future date, meaning the procedure would be carried out even if they are incapable of consenting, due to diminished mental capacity or other factors, when the pre-approved death date comes.

“Quebec has full jurisdiction to legislate in the area of ​​health care,” Bélanger wrote in French. “The advance request for MAiD is a consensus in Quebec.” 

 

“This is a real concern for Quebecers and on October 30, we will respect their choices by moving forward,” Bélanger continued.   

In September, the province announced they would soon be taking advance requests for MAiD after the June 2023 passing of Bill 11.

In Canada, there are two euthanasia laws, those passed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government and those passed solely in the province of Quebec. The 2023 passing of Bill 11 in Quebec expanded MAiD to those with serious physical disability, mandated that hospices offer the procedure and allowed euthanasia by advance request. 

The decision to enact the legislation came after senior ministers from the provincial government said they would not “wait any longer” for Canada’s federal Criminal Code to be amended to allow the change. 

“The Criminal Code has not changed. It is still illegal in this country under the Criminal Code to enact advance requests,” federal Health Minister Mark Holland said during an October 28 press conference before adding that he “can’t direct” how a province administers its “judicial system” and that is is “extremely important to say that we have a spirit of cooperation here, that the issue that Quebec raises is a legitimate and fair issue.”

Holland also said that the federal government will launch a countrywide consultation regarding the practice of advance requests in November, with a report due in March 2025.  

Quebec has the highest rate of MAiD in Canada. The province saw a 17 percent increase in euthanasia deaths in 2023 compared to 2022, with the program claiming the lives of 5,686 people. The high figure represents a staggering 7.3 percent of all deaths in the province, putting Quebec at the top of the list worldwide.

MAiD is not just on the rise in Quebec but throughout Canada as well. Since legalizing the deadly practice at the federal level in 2016, Trudeau’s Liberal government has continued to expanded who can qualify for death. In 2021, the Trudeau government passed a bill that permitted the killing of those who are not terminally ill, but who suffer solely from chronic disease. The government has also attempted to expand the practice to those suffering solely from mental illness, but have delayed until 2027 after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups as well as most of Canada’s provinces.

Overall, the number of Canadians killed by lethal injection since 2016 stands at close to 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone. Many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X