Canadian MP warns new WHO pandemic treaty may enshrine COVID-era freedom restrictions

Colin Carrie recounted the freedom-throttling measures the Canadian government took during the COVID outbreak, warning that the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement may help make such measures permanent.

Canadian Member of Parliament (MP) Colin Carrie warned this week that proposed World Health Organization (WHO) agreements with a passing deadline of late May could “institutionalize” freedom-throttling COVID “pandemic mistakes.”

Carrie recounted the liberty-crushing COVID-era events that took place in Canada as well as around the world during the first-ever Sovereignty Summit held at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, an event protesting the WHO’s pending threat to the sovereignty of its member nations, attended virtually by political leaders from around the world.

“Since COVID-19’s lockdowns and mandates, Canadians have seen our sovereignty, our charter rights and our civil liberties tested,” said Carrie, going on to point out that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has admitted that he admires the “basic dictatorship” of China.

It was under such a leader as Trudeau that “freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of consent and freedom of medical treatment were all enthusiastically challenged” by the government through “COVID dictates centrally controlled and communicated by the WHO,” Carrie noted.

Trudeau, moreover, “intentionally created an identifiable minority group — anti-vaxxers — and gleefully used all the power of the Canadian government to marginalize, dehumanize and keep over 6 million Canadians from fully participating in Canadian society,” Carrie declared.

He recalled how the Emergencies Act was “used to freeze bank accounts” while “businesses were shattered, seniors and loved ones died alone,” “children’s education was compromised and churches were closed,” affirming that Canadians do not want to relive this scenario during another real or supposed health emergency according to the dictates of the WHO.

Carrie went on to question why the WHO is saying the new Pandemic Agreement is “non-binding” when, according to the MP, the term “non-binding” was removed from the definitions of the treaty.

“Why would any country sign on to a new treaty when we haven’t conducted a serious evaluation of the last pandemic policy response? Will this treaty institutionalize WHO’s COVID pandemic mistakes?”

In a March 20 press release, the WHO called for an “urgent agreement from international negotiators on a Pandemic Accord … to bolster the world’s collective preparedness and response to future pandemics.”

A growing number of public figures as well as U.S. states and elected officials have raised the alarm about the so-called Pandemic Agreement in recent months.

In a letter dated May 22, almost half the U.S. governors, all of them Republicans, signed a letter to President Joe Biden declaring that they will resist any efforts of the WHO to control public policy in America through its proposed “Pandemic Agreement” and amended International Health Regulations (IHRs).

Earlier this month, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin also rallied every Republican in the U.S. Senate to sign an open letter imploring the Biden administration to reject the pending agreements being considered at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in late May.

Related Topics:#CovidMandates #COVIDRestrictions #EmilyMangiaracina #LifeSiteNews #MPColinCarrie #WHOPandemicTreaty feature

Up Next

They spent $8,000,000 without putting one shovel in the ground

Don't Miss

The Most Dangerous Man In Canada: Emmanuel Goldstein Reborn

Todayville

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

Their Strategy in the War on Food

Dan Knight / 4 hours ago

Trudeau’s $191 Million Scandal – Auditor General Exposes Rampant Cronyism with McKinsey Contracts

Brownstone Institute / 4 hours ago

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Agriculture

Their Strategy in the War on Food

Published on June 16, 2024

Todayville

From the Brownstone Institute

By TRACY THURMAN

In my previous two articles, we covered the global war on farmers and the culprits behind this agenda. Today, we will dive into the tactics these organizations use to foist their dystopian vision on the rest of us.

Perhaps you remember Event 201, the pandemic simulation run in late 2019 that served as a dress rehearsal for the 2020 Covid response. Such simulations have been used in the War on Food as well. Take, for example, the Food Chain Reaction Game, a 2015 wargame that simulated the time period from 2020 to 2030. Cargill and the other participants have removed the Food Chain Reaction Game data from their websites, but Cargill’s version was archived by independent researchers, so you can still see it here.

In the simulation, the decade brought “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” When the game ended, its organizers had imposed meat taxes in Europe, capped CO2 emissions, and instituted a global carbon tax. The time period of the Food Chain Reaction Game handily coincides with the 2020 Covid crisis and ends with the culmination of Agenda 2030. If you don’t think those dates are significant, you aren’t paying attention.

The parties behind this simulation include the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for American Progress, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Cargill. Note the participation of US military and intelligence-linked organizations in this simulation, much as they appeared throughout the Covid power grab. Cargill, as I mentioned before, is one of the most powerful members of the global Big Ag cartel and have excelled in crushing independent farmers globally to establish total control of the food supply. The Center For American Progress is a Soros and Podesta-affiliated think tank.

The World Wildlife Fund has a shady Malthusian history dating to its eugenicist founders like Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founder of the Bilderberg Group; transhumanist Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author Aldous Huxley); and Britain’s Prince Philip, who said he wanted to be reincarnated “as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

Note that the measures these conspirators concocted – meat taxes and a global carbon tax – have nothing to do with increasing the food supply to end famine – much as Event 201’s participants obsessed about vaccines and controlling misinformation rather than providing effective early treatment for disease. To state the obvious, neither simulation is really about solving hunger or viral contagion. They are designed to game out how to ram an agenda down the throats of an unwilling populace.

Both exercises are classic examples of Hegelian Dialectic, the problem-reaction-solution strategy whereby a problem is created or used to stimulate public demand for a solution. The solution always involves pre-planned actions or legislation that never would have passed public approval before the problem was created. To quote Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. By that I mean, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

The goal of the Food Chain Reaction Game simulation and the global elites who share this vision is simple but devastating: the controlled demolition of the current food supply and supply chain network – not to end factory farming and replace it with regenerative, earth healing agriculture – but to replace it with a global, centralized, fully surveilled, and tightly controlled food system based on lab-created and industrially processed so-called foods, with little dietary choice and abysmal health outcomes for all but the elites, using climate change as the excuse for it all.

As Bertrand Russell predicted, diet will not be left to individuals, but will be such as the best biochemists recommend.

If you’re new to this topic, you may feel that statement is hyperbolic. It is hard to grasp that there are people planning something this far-reaching and diabolical – it’s as far-fetched as a network of global elites using a lab-escaped virus as an excuse to destroy the economies of the world and forcibly inject billions with experimental poisons. But it is reality, and as the quotes from Bertrand Russell and Monsanto’s CEO hint, this agenda has been in the works for decades.

In my next article, we will look at some of the publicly acknowledged projects that are in the pipeline for achieving this goal.

Author

Tracy Thurman

Tracy Thurman is an advocate for regenerative farming, food sovereignty, decentralized food systems, and medical freedom. She works with the Barnes Law Firm’s public interest division to safeguard the right to purchase food directly from farmers without government interference.

DEI

School boards need leaders who focus on education not politics

Published on June 16, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

Canada’s largest school board is looking for a new leader. Colleen Russell-Rawlins, director of education of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), will retire this fall.

To say her tenure has been controversial would be an understatement. During her three years in the top job, TDSB doubled down on its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, with tragic consequences. Former TDSB principal Richard Bilkszto took his own life last year after facing relentless harassment from other administrators for challenging DEI orthodoxy during a professional development session.

The harms caused by DEI extend even further. Two years ago, TDSB voted to abolish its merit-based admissions policy at specialized arts and sports schools in the name of “equity.” Parents of students in these schools were not happy about this erosion of standards. After spending years building up these specialized schools, TDSB is now tearing them down.

Add to this the ongoing harassment of Jewish students in TDSB schools and the failure of administrators to crack down on employees who disseminate blatantly anti-Israel propaganda. Expect things to get even worse if trustees replace Russell-Rawlins with someone with a similar mindset and approach.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what will happen if TDSB follows the guidelines provided by the Ontario Public Supervisory Officers’ Association (OPSOA), the organization representing superintendents and directors of education in Ontario.

To be eligible for the position, prospective directors of education must complete the OPSOA’s Supervisory Officer’s Qualification Program. However, this program looks like a woke propogandist’s dream. According to the OPSOA’s website, the qualification program focuses on “anti-oppression, anti-racism, [and] anti—colonialism.” No wonder education directors appear obsessed with these topics.

Education Minister Stephen Lecce has stated that he wants school boards to focus more on academics. He’s even gone so far as to publicly rebuke school boards that get mired in debates over secondary issues such as masks or transgender policy. Lecce is right to be concerned. From 2003 to 2022, Ontario’s PISA math test scores declined from 530 to 495. That’s the equivalent of nearly two years of learning loss. Clearly, something needs to change.

However, things will only change for the better when school boards start hiring education directors who reject DEI ideology and who put academics first. This means choosing men and women who haven’t climbed the career ladder by pushing DEI initiatives.

At a minimum, the province must drop the requirement for education directors to hold supervisory officer’s qualifications. Making the completion of a program replete with DEI buzzwords such as “anti-oppression” and “anti-colonial” mandatory is a surefire way to ensure that education directors will focus on non-academic issues.

Fortunately, the Ford government has started making at least some changes. Back in 2020, Ontario removed the requirement for directors of education to be former teachers. Considering the uselessness of most Bachelor of Education courses, it’s legitimate to ask why anyone would need an education degree to run a school board.

Obviously, none of this means that qualifications don’t matter. The Ford government’s recent announcement that all future teachers must pass a math proficiency test shows that basic competency matters. People working for school boards, particularly those in the top job, must also be familiar with the education system and know how to lead effectively.

It’s important to remember why we have schools in the first place. The purpose of education is to help students master the academic basics, acquire important life skills, and become responsible Canadian citizens—not to indoctrinate students into woke ideology.

Schools can only function if they have the trust of the communities they serve. If parents feel that teachers are ignoring their concerns or are disrespecting their beliefs, they will pull their kids out of the government school system and pursue other educational options. While parents should always have this right, it’s unfortunate when they are forced into it by administrators who are hostile to their values.

TDSB trustees have a real opportunity to make a change for the better by hiring an education director with a track record of putting academics first. Otherwise, TDSB will continue its downward spiral.

Real change starts at the top. Hopefully, TDSB trustees realize the importance of the decision they are about to make and hire the right person for the job.