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 LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

Protestors rallied in London in opposition to ‘BritCard’, which would require the personal information of all UK workers

Thousands of protestors gathered in London to voice their opposition to the UK government’s plan to introduce mandatory digital IDs.

Last Saturday, the protestors marched through central London carrying signs that read “No to Digital ID,” “If You Accept Digital ID Today, You’ve Accepted Social Credit Tomorrow,” and “Once Scanned, Never Free.”

The protests came in response to Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing the government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID, called “BritCard,” for everyone who wants to work in the UK. The plan has been met with a strong backlash from the public, including protests in other cities, as reported by LifeSiteNews. Almost three million people have signed a petition opposing the government’s plan to make the “BritCard” mandatory for all workers by 2029. According to the petition, “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system,” which it describes as a “step towards mass surveillance and digital control.”

Starmer and his government used the problem of illegal immigration, for which they are at least partly responsible, as a pretext to mandate digital ID. However, critics say the real purpose of the scheme is to introduce mass surveillance of British citizens in order to control them.

The globalist NGO of the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change,” is one of the premier proponents of the digital ID scheme.

The protest in London was led by former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who was expelled from the Conservative Party in 2023 over his opposition to the COVID shots.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, told the Daily Mail that digital ID was “fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives.”

“Starmer has sold his Orwellian digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear,” she continued.

“We now know that digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education.”

“The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks the ID will be used for in the future.”

“No one voted for this and millions of people who have signed the petition against it are simply being ignored,” Carlo concluded.

The BritCard would be stored on smartphones and include personal details such as name, date of birth, residency status, nationality, a photograph, and potentially more sensitive personal data. The government is reportedly considering introducing digital IDs for children as young as 13.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the proposal was a “gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats,” while the head of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he was “firmly opposed” to it.

Farage has vowed to undo any digital ID system rolled out by the Labour government if he becomes UK’s next prime minister.

“It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalize the rest of us,” Farage said regarding the BritCard. “The state should never have this much power.”