A call for action Down Under
A delegation calls for an inquiry into an international manifesto, amendments to existing international health regulations and a proposed treaty.
Australians can be stroppy at times. And Kiwis don’t like to be told what to do by bullies.
But these useful traits come into play only when people know what they are up against.
Most people on the street today are unaware of the World Health Organisation’s determined bid for more power, how far its tentacles reach and the threat it poses to sovereignty and personal decision making.
The WHO website openly tells us that health governance is no longer the exclusive preserve of nation states. Its proposed amendments to International Health Regulations provide the key legal instrument needed for its bid for this global health governance. The regulations will automatically come into effect, by specified dates, unless expressly rejected.
In the meantime, the UN meets this month in New York to vote on a declaration that is closely allied to the WHO campaign - a show of solidarity and a dress rehearsal if you like.
We’re told $US 30 billion will be required by the WHO annually to be prepared to respond to a health emergency it declares.
An international ‘We Will Not Comply’ campaign is picking up but the WHO suggests that countries guilty of non-compliance might be addressed with public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of travel, trade and tourism benefits, for example.
In spite of the glaring lack of interest shown by most members of Parliament and mainstream media, citizens in Australia and New Zealand are finally waking up and becoming active.
In Australia, a delegation has taken their concerns to Canberra. Further, they have appealed to their Attorney-General and to their Human Rights Commissioner.
They call for politicians to be informed and to take action on WHO documents presently being prepared by unelected officials at the UN and the WHO, ‘behind closed doors, and with no public consultation’.
They warn that the changes will pass, ‘without barely a ripple’, unless the public becomes informed about them and they urge politicians to pre-emptively stop them.
“As our elected officials, we ask that this be on your radar. If not, the implications will change Australia’s health forever.”
The Australian delegation included a professor of medicine, a professor of cardiology, three doctors and two lawyers.
Professor of Medicine Wendy Hoy OA (QLD)
A/Prof Cardiology Chris Neil (Victoria)
Dr Russell Price Vascular Surgeon (QLD)
Dr Niro Sivathasan Cosmetic Surgeon (NSW)
Stuart Lindsay Barrister and retired Federal Magistrate (NSW) (absent)
Katie Ashby-Koppens Lawyer (NSW)
Mr Peter Fam Human Rights Lawyer (VIC)
Mrs Bernadette Ryan Social Worker/Researcher (ACT)
Dr Duncan Syme (VIC)
There’s something stirring in Aotearoa/New Zealand as well.
Concerned citizen Greg Rzesniowiecki presented a petition to Parliament, calling for a referendum, before the government goes along with the far reaching global health strategy.
His request for a referendum is refused.
In explanation, Parliament’s Petitions Committee said it was satisfied with the level of public consultation that the government undertook: “We believe New Zealanders have been given a fair opportunity to have their say in the negotiation. We do not consider that the international health instrument currently under negotiation calls for a referendum.”
Elsewhere the Office of the Ombudsman feels it necessary to appoint a ‘dedicated investigator’ to respond to an urgent request (made four months ago) for some simple and (should be easy to access) information - basically who represents us on the international health stage in Switzerland, and what their roles are.
Rzesniowiecki worries about the government’s honesty. He points to Chris Hipkins’ now infamous claim that people made their own choice when it came to vaccination,
“If Prime Minister (Chris) Hipkins' perspective is representative of the one underpinning New Zealand's attitude to the WHO Pandemic Accord, IHR Amendments and article 59, due for determination by November 2023, then there is no hope for any of us, as the government is running its policy on the basis of extreme disinformation or plain lying to the New Zealand public”, he says.
Medical authorities have indeed been guilty of error.
During the pandemic, three doctors had their practicing certificates suspended for ‘spreading Covid-19 misinformation’.
The big question remains: what is Covid-19 misinformation?
The official message from our health authorities was that the ‘safe and effective’ Pfizer vaccine offered high protection against the Covid virus and had been clinically proven to reduce people's chances of contracting the virus.
“Vaccinated people are about 75 percent less likely than unvaccinated people to develop a Covid-19 infection if exposed, and over 90 percent less likely to develop severe disease.”
Wrong and wrong.
Professor Wendy Hoy, a member of the Australian delegation, submits: “We must at least have a Royal Commission on (the Covid-19) response so we can know what we got right and what we got wrong. Yet the WHO and the UN are running headlong into the drafting of new documents without reflecting on that experience and what we might have learned from it.”
The call to action in Australia has several parts:
Call for a Senate enquiry into the Pandemic Declaration Manifesto, IHRAs and Pandemic Treaty: “There needs to be a group of elected representatives who will take responsibility to be informed about every aspect of the documents presented to ensure the best interests of all Australians and that our domestic laws are not undermined by international agreements.”
Oppose all Amendments which, even potentially undermine or dilute individual human rights and dignity, in the face of future health emergencies, as they arise.
Publicly support the letter to the Attorney General, demanding clear answers regarding timelines, intentions and analysis of constitutional and other implications, with clear assurances regarding the safeguarding of the individual human rights of all Australians.
Publicly demand assurances from Government and all relevant departments that the Pandemic Treaty and IHRAs will not cut across the dignity of all Australians and national capacity to manage responses to health situations as they arise.
Sources
WHO’s role in global health governance
petitions.parliament.nz Petitions
https://petitions.parliament.nz/2bc56985-22b1-48bf-a44c-667122be4b6e
Chris Hipkins: "There was no compulsory vaccination, people made their own choices."
Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before signing the proposed WHO pandemic treaty
Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before amending International Health Regulations
https://www.iamra.com/
Covid-19 misinformation probe: Three doctors suspended from practising | RNZ News
The doctors trying to hijack New Zealand's Covid-19 vaccination rollout | Stuff.co.nz
Hi-Rez & Jimmy Levy ~ We Will Not Comply
Notes:
More than 300 proposed amendments are currently being negotiated by an unelected WHO working group - the WGIHR.
The working group will present its final text to the World Health Assembly in May 2024 for consideration. If passed, requiring agreement of just 50 per cent of those present, member states will have 10 months to reject, after which it will come into force for non-rejecting states two months later.
If submitted for a vote, their adoption requires a simple majority of the 194 World Health Assembly states’ representatives present and voting. Alternatively, a committee of the Assembly may be tasked to negotiate and reach a consensus.
The working group will meet again in October and December 2023 – to discuss and agree on amendments for presentation to the World Health Assembly.
The amendments are designed to be complementary and compatible with the WHO treaty, (WHO CA+) that will also be considered at the World Health Assembly.
The WHO’s Executive Board gives effect to the decisions and policies of the World Health Assembly. The Organisation is headed by the Director-General, who is appointed by the World Health Assembly on the nomination of the Executive Board.
The entities with which WHO engages in partnerships include philanthropic foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies.