Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Great Reset

Leslyn Lewis warns WHO pandemic treaty amendments violate Canadian sovereignty

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The WHO amendments were adopted despite thousands of Canadians appealing for their rejection.

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has blasted that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new International Health Regulations (IHR), warning they will compromise Canada’s sovereignty.  

On December 19, Dr. Leslyn Lewis, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario, condemned Health Minister Mark Holland for failing to protect Canada’s sovereignty by consenting to pandemic amendments put forward by the WHO, which give the international organization increased power over Canadians.   

“Canada consented to the amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which limits Canada’s time to respond to further amendments, despite thousands of Canadians signing a petition expressing their concerns,” Lewis wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

In October, Lewis endorsed a petition demanding the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its subgroup, the World Health Organization (WHO), due to the organizations’ undermining of national “sovereignty” and the “personal autonomy” of citizens.  

The petition was signed by nearly 19,000 Canadians despite only being open for 30 days. It warned that the “secretly negotiated” amendments could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”  

However, despite Canadians’ concerns, the Trudeau government adopted the amendments proposed by the WHO. The new amendments reduce the time for “rejecting any future amendments to the IHR (2005) from 18 months to 10 months” and “implementing future changes into Canadian domestic law from 24 months to 12 months.”  

According to Lewis, the amendments alter the original treaty by failing to provide sufficient time for Canadians to consider changes to the agreement before they are scheduled to take effect.  

Lewis further explained that the amendments were first presented at the 75th World Health Assembly in 2022 in violation of the IHR law which states, “The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four (4) months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration. ”  

“Such amendments were illegitimately submitted and must therefore be regarded as null and void,” Lewis argued. “The question is, why were they not regarded as null and void by Canada?” 

Lewis pointed out that the 10-month period “would not allow sufficient time for Canada to study and closely examine the 300+ amendments currently being considered by the IHR.”  

“This period will be far too short to determine the scale of impacts of these proposed amendments on our domestic laws and the Canadian people,” she added.  

“This period will also be far too short to have these amendments go through the parliamentary process and to conduct the necessary public consultations on changes that constitute binding rules on Canada’s response to health emergencies,” Lewis warned.  

U.N.’s Agenda 2030 and the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ 

The Trudeau government’s rejection of Canadians’ concerns and acceptance of the amendments should not come as a surprise considering Trudeau’s environmental goals which are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”    

Agenda 2030 was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2015. Through its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it seeks to “transform our world for the better,” by “taking urgent action on climate change,” as well as “support[ing] the research and development of vaccines and medicines.” Some of the 17 goals also seek to expand “reproductive” services, including contraception and abortion, across the world in the name of women’s rights.  

According to the U.N., “all” nations working on the program “will implement this plan.”  

Part of the plan includes phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades. Canada is one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers; however, Trudeau has made it one of his goals to decimate the industry.   

Critics have sounded the alarm over the Trudeau government’s involvement in the WEF and other globalist groups, pointing to the socialist, totalitarian nature of the “Great Reset” agenda and its potential to usher in a Communist China-style social credit system. 

In a blow to the globalist U.N. agenda, however, Canada’s oil and gas sector recently scored a huge win after the Supreme Court of Canada declared Trudeau’s government’s Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is mostly “unconstitutional.”    

As for Lewis, she is pro-life and has consistently called out the Trudeau government for pushing a globalist, anti-life agenda on Canadians.   

DEI

Lawmakers press investigation into DEI agenda at the Pentagon

Published on

Marines in amphibious task force gunnery exercise in the East China Sea.   

From The Center Square

By

A Department of Defense official recently reported that in fiscal year 2023, all branches collectively fell short of their recruitment targets by more than 40,000. But that shortfall came even after recruitment targets were lowered significantly.

A coalition of lawmakers is pushing forward the ongoing investigation into just how much taxpayer money Pentagon officials are taking away from national defense and putting toward diversity, equity and inclusivity initiatives.

The Pentagon has been under increasing scrutiny for its focus on DEI, even as the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars continue.

The lawmakers sent a letter to the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion Chair General (Ret.) Lester Lyles expressing concerns that the focus on DEI was a distraction and was hurting recruitment.

“DoD’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion over mission effectiveness and capability concerns our nation’s national security and safety,” the letter said.

The letter comes ahead of an expected report from that committee on its work for DOD.

Military branches have struggled to meet recruitment goals in recent years. A Department of Defense official recently reported that in fiscal year 2023, all branches collectively fell short of their recruitment targets by more than 40,000. But that shortfall came even after recruitment targets were lowered significantly.

“Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS), an educational organization that includes retired military members, assembled a study of over one thousand unsolicited comments from military service members, veterans, and their respective families,” the letter said. “Their findings showed that many did not feel comfortable recommending military service because of the DEI policies instituted throughout DoD.”

As The Center Square has previously reported, the Pentagon has embraced an array of equity initiatives, from training on white privilege to guidelines on gender pronouns. Recently, the DOD asked for more than $100 million just for DEI initiatives, sparking backlash.

House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Chairman Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc., and House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., led other Republicans on the letter.

The lawmakers want a full explanation of what the DEI efforts at the Pentagon are, in detail.

“The Subcommittee remains concerned that under the guise of DEI, promotions are being rewarded based on sex, gender, ethnicity, and race at the expense of merit,” the letter said.

The lawmakers expressly called for transparency in the upcoming report.

“Americans have the right to expect that their sons and daughters in uniform are led, trained, and equipped by the very best,” the letter said. “The Subcommittee understands that the STARRS report was provided to DACODAI, but it is unclear the extent to which DACODAI will incorporate that information into its final report.”

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Australia passes digital ID bill, raising fears of government surveillance without accountability

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Critics argue the legislation, enacted under the guise of increased security, ramps up government surveillance and control, with no accountability mechanisms for public sector misuse.

The Australian Parliament has passed the Digital ID Bill 2024 and Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2024 which, it claims, will provide “certainty” for the expansion of the existing Australian government digital ID system.

The move is being presented as a way to improve “privacy and security” for people when interacting online by “verifying” users’ identities. The government claims that the legislation will reduce fraud and other malpractice by private actors, but the bill says nothing about the public actors, the government. The implication is that that the public sector will never do anything wrong with its increased powers, raising the suspicion that it is yet another move by state and federal governments to increase surveillance and control over the lives of citizens.

Australia is a paternalistic society and there is no mechanism to hold the executive branch of government accountable – indeed the possibility is rarely raised. There is thus nothing to stop more intrusions into people’s privacy by the government.

Commenting on the passing of the bill, Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party said that, while the voluntary system has been presented as a measure for security and convenience it could lead to significant privacy breaches, cyber-attacks, and government overreach. He described it as a potential attack on Australians’ “freedom, privacy, and way of life,” especially if it eventually becomes mandatory.

Roberts pointed to the Digital ID bill, the Online Safety Act, the Identity Services Verification Act, and the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill as elements of what looks like a coordinated plan by the federal government “to identify, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into serfdom.” In the initial inquiry into the Digital ID bill, he said, the Human Rights Commission “drew attention to the lack of protection of privacy and human rights in the bill,” but it was ignored. Roberts added that the bill is very similar to legislation being implemented in other Western nations.

A significant proportion of the Australian population has concluded that politicians and the public sector cannot be trusted and that they fail to scrutinize their own actions. As if to underline this unaccountability, the Digital ID bill was passed using “tricks used to stifle debate and public discussion,” according to former federal senator Craig Kelly. He said on X (formerly Twitter) that the way the bill was passed was “contrary to precedent, the spirit of the Constitution and [the] Westminster tradition.”

“Labor introduced the Digital ID in the Senate (the House of review) instead of the House of Representatives,” Kelly wrote. “Then they guillotined debate in the Senate. And in House of Representatives, Labor shifted debate to the Federation Chamber where the Liberals put up token resistance with only one Liberal MP and two National MP’s bothering to speak on the Bill – and they didn’t even try any amendments to protect privacy or to try and safeguard against it being made compulsory.”

The government mendacity continues – at a time when federal laws against “disinformation and misinformation” are being debated. There is constant propaganda in government-funded media outlets about what an effective job was done against the “pandemic” by pursuing lockdowns and mass vaccination. It is false; there was no pandemic. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 2020 and 2021 had the lowest number of deaths from respiratory diseases since records have been kept.

The federal government, in a statement, is giving the impression that the move is merely a way to protect vulnerable Australians, to give certainty for providers and services, and to provide transparency in order “to build public trust.” But what is not said is more important than what is said. There is no mechanism for Australians to redress wrongs committed by the government.

What should happen is something that has never existed in Australia: the establishment of a way for Australians to hold the public sector accountable and stop their governments becoming a menace, as occurred during the “pandemic.” Unless public servants are at risk of being penalized, or at least of having their actions constrained, there is a strong likelihood that fears about the Digital ID Bill will ultimately be realized.

Continue Reading

Trending

X