If you don’t like what happened during the past three years, expect worse to come

Fundamental human rights and freedoms are on the line

Nov 09, 2023

You may have heard that a delegation of concerned New Zealand citizens has written to the country’s Attorney General and the Human Rights Commissioner about the World Health Organisation’s push for global power.

They warn that what is proposed in the WHO’s pandemic treaties and amended health regulations, if tacitly accepted by New Zealand, will mean:

we are bound without reservation to significant WHO obligations
we will forfeit the right to make decisions as a country with respect to “all risks with a potential to impact public health”
we will be required to amend and implement domestic legislation in accordance with the new treaties.

The delegation calls for the government to stand up: it should give urgent consideration to the WHO’s current negotiations and register rejection or, at least, reservation, to at least enable awareness and discussion.

Basically, the WHO wants its 194 member states to recognise it as the ‘guidance and coordinating authority’ during any potential international health emergency. It wants to declare when such an emergency occurs and then issue legally binding directions for its member states to follow.

Please note that, in driving its bid for more control, the WHO finds it necessary to delete its former policy commitment for “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”.

So, letters went out this week from the delegation to the Attorney General and the Human Rights Commissioner, while a press release was sent to newspapers, magazines, online news platforms, radio and TV stations throughout NZ and further afield.

The WHO’s campaign has, so far, been largely ignored - although Stuff’s “The Whole Truth” fact checkers go so far as to tell us our sovereignty is not at risk.

In truth, unless the WHO’s member states say NO, they will be giving unelected bureaucrats discretionary powers to lockdown their citizens and economy for any perceived potential or actual public health emergency.

The legal framework that is being negotiated includes:

changing WHO emergency guidance from advisory to legally binding
empowering the WHO’s unelected Director General to declare a public health emergency of international concern
seeking to increase censorship of voices disagreeing with official governmental or WHO guidance.

But wait, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus denies that the WHO is threatening national sovereignty - and our Stuff believes him.

Do you?

Tedros spoke at the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body this week, November 8.

“I urge you to consider that the core International Health Regulations strengths, in surveillance, risk assessment, and core capacities, must be safeguarded, and indeed strengthened.”

Reaching consensus was not straightforward, he admitted:

“And as if the challenge was not difficult enough, we are operating amid a torrent of fake news, lies, conspiracy theories and mis- and disinformation. There are those who say – whether they believe it themselves or not – that the accord will cede sovereignty to WHO; that it will give the WHO Secretariat power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries, and other nonsense. You know and we know that the agreement will give WHO no such powers. We need your support to put this nonsense to rest. We need your support to counter these lies, by speaking up at home and telling your citizens that this agreement will not, and cannot, cede sovereignty to WHO.”

What happens to national and individual sovereignty, if Tedros and his team of unelected representatives can tell us, from Switzerland, when to close our borders, what medications we can and cannot take, what documentation is required to move around and how much money we should contribute to the WHO?

Tedros might be reminded that the true meaning of sovereignty is complete independence and self-government.

Getting back to the citizen delegation: the signatories warn that the principle of informed consent and the right to access safe and effective medical products, as well as the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation are compromised or denied by the measures being developed by the WHO.

They ask the Attorney General if his office has considered how the WHO instruments will impact on the laws of New Zealand, including Treaty of Waitangi obligations and other international agreements to which New Zealand is a party.

A similar letter, sent to Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt outlines the delegation’s concerns about the impact on human rights.

They state that it is imperative that the Commission considers the treaties in light of its statutory functions: “We seek from the Human Rights Commission confirmation that it is aware of the treaties and are considering their impact on the laws of New Zealand as well as the serious human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications.”

But the WHO, deep in its One Health ideology, seems to be unstoppable in its mission. It proclaims that climate change, water and air pollution, livestock farming and food safety are among significant challenges the planet is facing.

So then, there’s plenty of scope for potential health risks.

Somewhere in its advisories, the WHO says individuals can help by ensuring pets are vaccinated.

The opportunities for implementing WHO dictates are endless.

Notes:

The Māori Health Authority has registered concerns about the limited time frames under IHRAs Article 59.

The Māori self governing body, Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni, has issued a rahui (prohibition) on mRNA BioNTech Medical Gene Therapy and all derivatives, to apply from 17 October 2023 until further notice: “Due to concerns that Maori as the native tribal people of New Zealand and other Pacific Islanders were disproportionately targeted for vaccination and including all New Zealanders affected and being aware of the mounting evidence and expert opinion that the mRNA technologies promoted as ‘safe and effective’ vaccines are injurious to human life, a rahui has been placed on the importation, sale and use of the mRNA BioNTech medical technology and all derivatives.”

Lawyer Kirsten Murfitt has written an open letter to Members of Parliament requesting that they 'opt-out’ of the amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 and to engage Crown Law to provide a legal opinion on how the IHR will impact on New Zealand’s sovereignty and ability to manage any public health response. She says: “Most New Zealanders are blissfully unaware of the amendments to the IHR. If adopted, the amendments will move political power from the New Zealand voters into the hands of an unelected and undemocratic organisation. The government must act democratically and debate the adoption of the current amendments and the substantial amendments to the IHR in a public forum.”

ACT has posted a message saying it supports information sharing provisions for pandemic prevention preparedness and response but would not support an agreement which lays out requirements for matters of domestic governance. “New Zealand’s Parliament is sovereign and the WHO cannot tell us what to do.”