Connect with us

Great Reset

Leslyn Lewis warns WHO pandemic treaty amendments violate Canadian sovereignty

Published

7 months ago

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.   

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
Economy / 5 hours ago

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 5 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

International

Switzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’

Published on July 25, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

In what feels like a dystopian movie, Switzerland’s new portable death “pod” to allow people to kill themselves is on track to claim its first victim this year. 

In a July 16 press conference, Florian Willet, chief executive of pro-euthanasia organization The Last Resort, announced that Switzerland will “soon” use its portable suicide pod to end a life for the first time.

“Since we have people indeed queueing up, asking to use the Sarco, it’s very likely that it will take place pretty soon,” Willet said, eerily describing it as a “beautiful way” to die.   

The pod is called Sarco, short for sarcophagus, the name of the coffins in which ancient Egyptian pharaohs were buried. The futuristic-looking 3D-printed capsule was first unveiled in 2019 for assisted suicide in Switzerland but was met with controversy.  

It’s founder, Philip Nitschke, who has been nicknamed “Dr. Death” for his attempt to “glamorize” suicides, explained how the pod works in a recent interview with the South China Morning Post.  

Once a person is inside the pod, they are asked who they are, where they are and if they know what happens when they press the button. 

The death in the pod can also be activated by a button, gesture, voice control, or blink of the eye for those who cannot vocally or physically communicate due to severe illness or mobility issues.  

After they answer, a voice says, “If you want to die press this button.” Once the button is pressed, the pod is flooded with nitrogen causing the oxygen to plummet from 21 per cent to 0.05 per cent in the air in less than 30 seconds. 

“They will then stay in that state of unconsciousness for … around about five minutes before death will take place,” Nitschke explained.  

The death inside the pod is filmed, and the footage is handed to a coroner. 

The push to debut the pod this year comes after the pod was banned earlier this month after prosecutors questioned the legality and ethics of the pod, pointing out that it is unclear who is responsible for the death and who operates the pod.   

Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942, with its only requirements being that the person freely chooses death, is of sound mind, and that their decision is not motivated by selfish reasons. 

The county’s broad euthanasia policy has made it a tourist attraction from those around the world who wish to end their lives.  

In addition to the legal question of who is responsible for the death, pro-life organizations have condemned the pods for trivializing death and undermining the dignity of life.   

“Philip Nitschke’s device has been condemned by a broad range of commentators,” James Mildred, director of engagement for pro-life organization Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), said.  

“Many people feel that it trivialises, and even glamourises, suicide,” he explained.  

“We believe that suicide is a tragedy that good societies seek to prevent in every circumstance,” Mildred continued. “There are ethical ways to help human beings that don’t involve the destruction of life.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on July 24, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 (and it’s been 40 years since the actual year 1984). In the novel, Orwell explains the dangers of totalitarianism by exploring what happens when government exercises extreme levels of control over citizens including censoring and controlling language. While Canada is a relatively free country in 2024, there are aspects of Orwell’s world reflected in government policy today.

The Human Freedom Index, published annually by the Fraser Institute and Cato Institute, defines freedom as a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals by the absence of coercive constraint. In a free society, citizens are free to do, say or think almost anything they want, provided it does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Canada currently fares relatively well compared to other countries on the Human Freedom Index, placing 13th out of 165 countries. However, our score has dropped six spots on the index since 2008 when Canada recorded its highest ever rank.

This is not surprising given the Trudeau government’s recent efforts to control and manage the free exchange of ideas. The recent Online Streaming Act imposes various content rules on major streaming services such as Netflix, and requirements to extract funds to be redirected toward favoured groups. The Act seemingly seeks to bring the entire Internet under the regulation of a government body.

In another piece of recent legislation, the Online News Act, the government attempted to force certain social media platforms to pay other legacy news outlets for carrying content. In response, the social media platforms chose simply not to allow content from those news providers on their platforms, resulting in a dramatic reduction of Canadians’ access to news.

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem “dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is not something we should take for granted anymore.

Authors: 

 

Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
Continue Reading

Trending

X