Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

WHO health treaty a convenient cover for more government overreach: Bruce Pardy

Published

11 months ago

8 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Bruce Pardy

The updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.

Last September, the CBC ran a hit piece on Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis after she warned that a new international pandemic treaty could undermine Canadian sovereignty over public health.

Catherine Cullen, the CBC journalist, quoted three academics to debunk Lewis’ claims. It’s nonsense, said Stephen Hoffman of York University. “So far from the truth that it’s actually hard to know where to begin,” said Kelley Lee of Simon Fraser University. It’s fearmongering, said Timothy Caulfield of the University of Alberta, as no treaty can suspend the Canadian Constitution. That last part is correct, but Lewis is right to be concerned. Under the guise of international cooperation, governments are devising a cover to enact even tougher public health restrictions next time a crisis is declared.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is drafting a new pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations, which since 2005 have set out countries’ obligations for managing the international spread of disease. Member countries of the World Health Assembly are expected to approve both in May. The agreement would establish governing principles for an international pandemic management regime, and the updated regulations will transform the WHO from an advisory body to the directing mind and will of global health.

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 Canada and elsewhere, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history. If the new proposals are anything to go by, next time may be worse.

Under the new health regulations, the WHO will have the authority to declare public health emergencies. 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 operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

In other words, governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. They will make private citizens and domestic businesses comply too. Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions and more will be on the table. Under the draft agreement, countries would commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.” During COVID, despite governments’ best efforts, dissidents managed to seed doubts about the mainstream pandemic narrative. In the future, things may be different.

WHO officials and proponents of the proposals won’t admit to any of this out loud, of course, and you won’t hear much about these plans in the mainstream press. But the draft proposals, at least the ones released, say so in black and white.

Many national governments will be on board with the plan. That may seem counterintuitive since it appears to diminish their control, but more valuable to them is the cover that WHO directives will provide for their own heavy hands. Officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing international obligations. Binding WHO recommendations leave them no choice, they will say. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.”

That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO directives would not be directly enforceable in Canadian courts. But national governments can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can craft domestic laws accordingly. That too is an exercise of sovereignty. They can undertake to tie their own hands.

Provinces might decide to go along also. Provinces have jurisdiction over many orders that the WHO might recommend. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, quarantine orders and other public health restrictions are primarily provincial matters. The feds control air travel, international borders, the military, drug approvals and the federal workforce. The federal government’s power to make treaties cannot oust provincial legislative jurisdiction, but WHO cover for restrictive measures would appeal to provinces as well.

The WHO cannot suspend the Constitution. International norms, however, can influence how courts read constitutional provisions, and the meaning of the Constitution is fluid, as our Supreme Court is fond of insisting. If norms change, so might the court’s interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The WHO’s proposals can’t define Canadian constitutional rights, but they aren’t irrelevant either.

Proponents would deny that the WHO is seizing control or undermining democracy. Technically they are correct. National governments must approve the new international pandemic plan. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. And 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, and these were embraced by rich countries, unable to resist the virtue signaling and validation of their own climate boondoggles.

States that sign on to the WHO proposals retain the sovereignty to change their minds, but leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the United Kingdom 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. 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.

The WHO proposals prescribe authority without accountability, but they do not eliminate sovereignty. Instead, national governments are in on the game. When your own government aims to manage you, national sovereignty is no protection anyway.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe, professor of law at Queen’s University and senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

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
Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Shoot Down The Drones!

National / 3 hours ago

Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February

National / 12 hours ago

Canadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich calls out Trudeau in EU Parliament address for shunning protesters

Published on December 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Speaking as an invited guest, Tamara Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022 calling for an end to COVID mandates that authorities treated the protesters like a ‘drug cartel.’

Tamara Lich, leader of Canada’s 2022 Freedom Convoy, was invited to speak before the European Parliament and wasted no time blasting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for “hiding” from protesters instead of engaging in dialogue as he did with other activist groups.

“We have politicians calling us terrorists, domestic terrorists, racists, even accusing us of trying to burn down an apartment building,” she said during her address.

“This is not the Canada I grew up in.”

Lich was a guest at the EU Parliament by the Europe of Sovereign Nations group, which is a right-of-center faction. She was joined alongside MEP Christine Anderson to speak to the parliament located in Strasbourg, France.

Lich recounted how during the Freedom Convoy protests, which took place in January and February 2022 in Ottawa calling for an end to COVID mandates, authorities treated the protesters like a “drug cartel.”

“Our prime minister ran away and hid and refused to even send anyone out to talk to us. … As a matter of fact, he even said that he’s attended protests before but only those that he supports,” she said.

“In my opinion, the leader of a country leads all of their people, not just the ones who believe in the same ideology. That is his job, and he failed us. They all failed us.”

Lich in a later social media post to X noted how it was a “privilege and an honour to speak to the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group this evening about the treatment of hard-working, blue-collar Canadians and the brave truckers who stood up for all of us.”

“I was able to speak about the current political climate in Canada, the censorship of our media, lawfare and political prisoners (our beloved Coutts boys) and the freezing of bank accounts without Parliamentary oversight or court order from a judge among many other concerning and important issues we are facing as Canadians under this current regime,” Lich said. “Thank you to Madam Christine Anderson and the ESN Group for this amazing opportunity. I will never forget it.”

Lich still faces up to 10 years in jail for protesting government COVID mandates

Lich and co-leader Chris Barber’s trial concluded in September, more than a year after it began. It was originally scheduled to last 16 days.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Lich and Barber’s verdict will be announced on March 12.

Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence. LifeSiteNews reported extensively on their trial.

During Lich’s speech, Lich noted how she was thankful for “support” Canadians showed to the Freedom Convoy “in the form of donations which were that we were going to receive.”

“We honestly thought we would just drive there, you know a small group of us,” she said. “But what we saw, as you guys obviously did too, on the sides of the roads and on the overpasses, was an overwhelming number of Canadians out there to support us who finally felt hope for the first time in years. Who finally felt proud to be Canadian for the first time in years.”

The $24 million raised by GoFundMe was frozen on the orders of the government.

“The first GoFundMe campaign that we started was taking in $1 million a day as we travelled across the country. (It) was frozen after the politicians contacted GoFundMe and told them that we were ‘domestic terrorists’ and that they were ‘fighting terrorism,’” Lich said.

She recounted how the problems facing Canada under the Trudeau government are not just an issue at home but around the world.

“This is what they are trying to do,” said Lich, adding, “I see it everywhere, it’s to demoralize and bankrupt you, but I’m here to tell you that they picked on the wrong woman, and we’ll keep fighting.”

In early 2022, thousands of Canadians from coast to coast came to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23.

The EA controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.

Continue Reading

Trending

X