Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Great Reset

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

Published

1 year 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.

Before Post

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
Business / 1 hour ago

Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs

2025 Federal Election / 1 hour ago

‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs

Business / 2 hours ago

Trump says wave of reciprocal tariffs will go into effect at midnight

2025 Federal Election

WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals

Published on April 2, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘We’re going to need a fundamental transformation, really a revolution in the financial system,’ Mark Carney said in a 2023 World Economic Forum video heralding ‘net zero’ policies.

A 2023 video by the World Economic Forum shows Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, then working as an executive for Brookfield Asset Management, heralding the idea of “net zero” climate goals in order to spur a financial “revolution.”

“Time is running out to make this transition to net zero, to have a sustainable world,” said Carney in the three-minute video which was released as part of the WEF’s Centre for Financial and Monetary Systems series.

“We need to transition the energy system on the scale of the industrial revolution at the speed of the digital transformation,” Carney continued, adding that “we’re going to need a fundamental transformation, really a revolution in the financial system.”

Carney explained the progress globalists have been making in achieving this goal, detailing that at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, called COP26, only “$5 trillion in the financial system was explicitly committed” to “net zero,” but that as of 2023, that number had gone up to “130 trillion dollars,” which represents 40 percent of global financial assets.”

Carney then took a more direct climate alarmist approach, saying that the world is going to continue to experience “more droughts, more hurricanes, more extreme weather, and more damage” because of so-called “climate change.”

LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on the World Economic Forum, its origins and its agendas, and most infamously its “Great Reset” plan, which contains many aspects of socialism.

As for Carney, he was installed as Canada’s 24th prime minister in March, taking over from Justin Trudeau. In addition to being an admitted “elitist” and a “globalist,” Carney has a history of promoting or endorsing anti-life and anti-family agendas, including abortion and LGBT-related efforts.

Shortly after being sworn in as prime minister, Carney called an election, with Canadians slated to head to the polls on April 28.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

France condemned for barring populist leader Marine Le Pen from 2027 election

Published on March 31, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

It remains to be seen how long the rule of lawfare can last against the rising demand for popular politics. The globalist remnants across the West are now liberal democracies in name only.

Marine Le Pen, the former leader of the populist French opposition party, has been sentenced to prison and barred from standing for election as president in 2027, following a court ruling against her for alleged financial crimes.

Le Pen is currently leading polls to win the presidential election, being 11 to 17 points ahead of the party of the globalist President Emmanuel Macron.

The ruling Monday on charges of “misuse of EU funds” sees Le Pen, leader of the National Rally (RN) party, facing two years’ imprisonment and a five-year ban on running for elected office. Her lawyer stated she would appeal the ruling.

 

Speaking a day before the verdict, Le Pen said, “There are 11 million people who voted for the movement I represent. So tomorrow, potentially, millions and millions of French people would see themselves deprived of their candidate in the election.”

She is to address the French nation in a televised statement Monday night.

Party leader Jordan Bardella responded on X, saying, “Today, it is not only Marine Le Pen who is unjustly condemned: it is French democracy that is being executed.”

Bardella has called for “peaceful mobilization” in support of Marine Le Pen, with a petition launched in protest at the “democratic scandal” of her effective cancellation as a candidate.

The RN won 33 percent of the vote in the first round of the 2024 French parliamentary elections, being the single largest party overall. It is prevented from entering government by a “cordon sanitaire” – an agreement between liberal-global and left-wing parties to “firewall” national-populists from power regardless of how many people vote for them.

Le Pen’s appeal would suspend the jail sentence and the fine of 100,000 euros – but would not be heard until 2026, effectively sabotaging her preparations for the 2027 election should she win. The ban takes effect when the appeal process is exhausted, meaning Le Pen is free to campaign until her appeal is heard in a year’s time.

The court ruled that Le Pen, whose RN was the single largest party in the recent French parliamentary elections, had misused 3 million euros in EU funds by paying party officials based in France.

She had told France’s La Tribune Dimanche on Saturday that “the judges have the power of life or death over our movement.”

The judges appear to have given her party a death sentence. Eight further RN members and twelve assistants were also found guilty in the same trial.

Elon Musk has warned the move will “backfire,” with globalist house magazine The Economist in agreement that “her sentence for corrupt use of EU funds could strengthen the hard right.” Its report stated, “Barring Marine Le Pen is a political earthquake for France.”

The shockwaves have reached across Europe, and around the world. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called the court’s ruling a “declaration of war by Brussels,” joining Dutch and Hungarian national-populist leaders Geert Wilders and Viktor Orban in condemnation of the move.

 

According to commentators, the legal ruling shows that the liberal-global regime is now canceling democracy. Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger said on X of worldwide globalist moves to criminalize its opponents: “This is a five alarm fire.”

 

Citing the lawfare undertaken against then-candidate Donald Trump, former State Department official Mike Benz described the many examples of the rule of lawfare were “a dagger in the heart of democracy”:

 

Donald Trump Jr. asked whether the French judiciary are “just trying to prove JD Vance was right” – referring to the vice president’s “blistering attack on European leaders” over their rising censorship and anti-democratic moves. Vance told EU and UK leaders in Munich, “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”

U.S. political strategist Steve Bannon also referenced populist figures facing legal persecution in his “War Room” rundown of the Le Pen affair today:

 

The move to legally “firewall” Le Pen has left even her political opponents disturbed, with the ruling Prime Minister Francois Bayrou reportedly “disquieted” by the verdict. Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of the left-liberal LFI and a determined political enemy of Le Pen, has said, “The decision to remove an elected official should be up to the people” – not the courts.

Right-populist leader Eric Zemmour, who coined the term “remigration,” warned of a “coup d’etat” of activist judges in 1997 – and said today that “everything has to change” as “it is not for judges to decide for whom the people must vote.”

Laurent Wauquiez of the conservative Les Republicains – who have also refused to work with the RN in coalition – said, “The decision to condemn Marine Le Pen is heavy and exceptional. In a democracy, it is unhealthy that an elected official be forbidden to stand for election.”

It seems this latest example of liberal-global lawfare may even see Le Pen’s party rise in the polls, with a survey today showing two-thirds of all French voters saying her ineligibility would not stop them voting for her RN party.

Nearly half of voters believe she was treated harshly “for political reasons,” with a quarter believing the move to bar her will be a “trump card” for the party overall.

Whether the move “backfires” or not, the message to Western electorates is becoming clear. You can vote for liberals of the left, right, or center – because anyone offering a real alternative will be locked out of power, or locked up in jail.

It remains to be seen how long the rule of lawfare can last against the rising demand for popular politics. After canceled elections, speech crackdowns, and criminalizing their opponents, the globalist remnants across the West are now liberal democracies in name only.

Continue Reading

Trending

X