Connect with us

Great Reset

‘The treaty is done’: WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now

Published

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.

Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” – or “pandemic treaty” – and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least.

The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland.

The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.”

But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”

“Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”

Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).

READ: 24 Republican governors tell Biden they will resist ‘unconstitutional’ WHO pandemic treaty

The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. …

The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.

The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.”

Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender:

It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations.

This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.

The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.”

Opening the World Health Assembly on Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus suggested efforts to finalize the two proposals will continue.

“We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, in remarks quoted by The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.”

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom – an organization working to defeat the WHO’s proposals – celebrated the news and suggested the WHO’s efforts have failed irreversibly.

“The treaty is done,” Nass wrote on Substack. “Nothing in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week.” She characterized the news as a “first round” win “in the war of democracy versus one-world government.”

WHO proposals ‘rolled out through lies and stealth’

Negotiations failed despite efforts by Tedros and others to persuade negotiators and WHO member states to agree on the two texts in time for a vote at the World Health Assembly.

At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January, Tedros warned of the pandemic threat posed by a yet-unknown “Disease X” and said the pandemic agreement “can help us to prepare for the future in a better way because this is about a common enemy.”

In March, over 100 former world leaders, including former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair – a proponent of “vaccine passports” and digital ID – signed a letter urging WHO member states to finalize negotiations on the “pandemic agreement.”

Biden administration officials negotiating on behalf of the U.S. also pushed for the two documents to be finalized.

Loyce Pace, assistant secretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told The Times. “Those of us in public health recognize that another pandemic really could be around the corner.”

In December 2023, Pace testified before Congress in support of the two documents. “It’s only a matter of time before the world faces another serious public health threat,” she said, noting the U.S. role in drafting some of the proposed IHR amendments.

But according to Nass, the entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through “lies and stealth.”

“Globalists created legal documents replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions,” she said. “But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it.”

Nass wrote that the “consensus” on the IHR proposals delivered to the World Health Assembly are “the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones.”

There is one exception, Nass said. Referring to Article 5 of the IHR amendments, she noted that “the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation.”

“Nearly all governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us,” Nass said. “So, while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything.”

She also noted that while consensus was reached on Article 18, the implementation of “health passports” and other similar documents during a health emergency is now a “recommendation” instead of a requirement. Definite language – such as the word “shall” – has been removed from the text.

‘They are not going to go away’

Other legal experts and health freedom advocates welcomed the news but said the WHO will likely continue pushing for the two proposals.

Australian attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens, who helped advocate for New Zealand’s rejection of a previous set of IHR amendments last year, told The Defender, “I don’t know that we should be celebrating the failure to reach agreement at this stage as a milestone.”

Journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “Member nations and the WHO have not given up. To the contrary, they have every intention of continuing in their attempts to finalize the negotiations.”

“Now is not the time to celebrate,” Roguski continued. “Now is the time to come together in order to take focused and massive action.”

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender, “According to my information, if the pandemic agreement fails, then they can continue negotiations later this year, with the view of trying again at next year’s World Health Assembly.”

Terhorst added:

We were informed that the World Health Assembly will not vote on the Pandemic Agreement this week, but the member states will vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations. They are negotiating as we speak in Geneva and they are working towards a deal at the end of this week, probably Saturday, June 1, 2024.

The amendments to the International Health Regulations are far more threatening than the Pandemic Agreement because it can pave the way for a digital vaccination passport.

Also amendments are on the table providing that Member States have to organize within their national health system an authority that implements all instructions of the Director-General of WHO within their territory with intense obligations for surveillance.  So we are by no means out of the danger zone. To the contrary.

“Given the WHO/World Health Assembly is a law unto themselves, and they desperately want these treaty reforms to pass, then the mandate to continue and finalize their negotiations may be extended,” Ashby-Koppens said.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender the WHO’s proposals were “the first time … that globalists spent an enormous amount of time, effort, money and brainpower to construct a worldwide totalitarian police state under the guise of protecting public health.”

Boyle said:

The WHO won’t back down from its proposals easily. They are not going to go away. They have come this far, and they will keep at it until they get their objective by hook or by crook. The only way to protect ourselves from these globalists is to pull out of the WHO.

But Nass believes the WHO may encounter difficulty in bringing back its proposals, telling The Defender it would be “unlikely to get far with either document unless they are pared down to what does not actually matter much to any nation.”

“I expect they will patch together a few [proposals] and vote yes and claim victory. But their major desires are all smashed,” Nass said. “They needed secrecy and ignorance, and they lost those advantages.”

Experts told The Defender a key factor in the WHO’s failure to achieve consensus on the two proposals was opposition from several nations – and by people worldwide.

“People and politicians around the world were educated about what was really being negotiated, what was really in the documents,” Nass said.

On Saturday, CHD participated in a rally against the WHO proposals, across from the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Watch Mary Holland speak at the New York rally here.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on

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: 

 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘We are in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Tom Olohan

“It’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us”

Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and George Washington University law professor, issued some stark warnings on the future of free speech.

During the July 12 episode of MRC UnCensored, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider spoke with Turley about his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, and his observations about free speech and the media from a long and successful career.

Turley warned that journalism schools have abandoned long-held standards and young Americans have been indoctrinated against free speech. He made clear that a dangerous public-private partnership between powerful institutions threatened the future of the First Amendment.

“We are now in what the book refers to as the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history, and the reason is indeed this alliance that has never formed before, of the government, corporations, academia [and] the media, all aligned against free speech,” he said.

 

Turley followed with a description of this alliance’s twisted rationale. “You now have on college campuses and in many media outlets, the unrelenting mantra that free speech is dangerous, that it is threatening us, threatening jobs, even threatening lives,” Turley said. “And the idea here is very simple, it’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us and if you just give the government more power over your speech you’ll be happy and safer.”

When Turley warned that the “wave” of censorship arriving in America “began in Europe,” Schneider lamented that American free speech had once inspired advocates of freedom in Europe and the world, such as Lech Wałęsa and Václav Havel. “And something has changed again, in Europe, in here, where people now see free speech as a threat to democracy, as a pose to the most important central element of democracy.”

Turley dug deep from his experience and observations to explain this state of affairs. He mentioned that he had poured 30 years of work into his book and observed the media make a massive turn for the worse during that period.

The Fox News contributor also noted that journalism schools have officially abandoned objectivity and neutrality. Turley made the point that the media had abandoned its principles in part because new graduates had been taught to abandon them: “J-schools now teach that, that objectivity and neutrality get in the way of social and political agendas. That’s what we’re producing from J-schools and its having an impact.”

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X