From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“Canada’s health policies must reflect the needs, desires, and freedoms of Canadians – not the mandates of distant bureaucrats in Geneva or global elites in Davos. A free and democratic Canada requires vigilance and action on the part of Canadians. The time to act is now” he wrote. 

Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic noted that “(b)y treating WHO edicts as binding, the federal government has effectively placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“Such directives, if enforced, would likely violate Canadians’ Charter rights and freedoms,” she added.

Hannaford said that “Canada’s health policies must be made in Canada.”

“No free and democratic nation should outsource its emergency powers to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva,” he wrote.

The report warned that new IHR regulations could mandate that signatory nations impose strict health-related policies, such as vaccine mandates or lockdowns, with no “public accountability.”

“Once the WHO declares a ‘Pandemic Emergency,’ member states are obligated to implement such emergency measures ‘without delay’ for a minimum of three months,” the JCCF said.

“Canada should instead withdraw from the revised IHR, following the example of countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United States,” the JCCF continued. “The report recommends continued international cooperation without surrendering control over domestic health policies.”

Earlier this year, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis condemned the Liberal government for accepting the WHO’s IHR.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.

In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.

Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.

Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.

For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.

“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.

John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.

“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.

What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.

As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.