CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?
What will the proposed amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations really mean in our lives?
If and when the Director General of the WHO, with advice from a panel of experts claim there is either a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern ( even at a regional level) they expect and demand the autonomy and authority to impose ‘control measures’ on your life.
Our lives, our rights and freedoms are centred on the simple premise that it is the commission of a wrongful act that attracts the lawful and just restriction of those freedoms within society.
However, the WHO wants to invert this premise when they see fit to do so. It will mean that if you want to open your business, go for a walk with your dog, play with your children outside, go to shops to buy food, visit your parents or relatives, socialise with your friends you will either need permission from or have to plead your case to a committee.
The ‘All of Government and Society Approach’ to health emergencies being proposed under the WHO 1948 Constitution will allow for a new treaty being underpinned by amending the International Health Regulations that will effectively mean every ordinary free person will no longer have the protections of access to justice and due process that have kept us safe and ensured our human rights.
We will have to go cap in hand for we want and or need and will be subject to the decisions of committees and experts that we did not vote, cannot vote out and can have no way to make them answerable for their decisions.
It is our inalienable right to be governed with, by people we elect; not ruled over by a politburo.
Once you absorb and discern the hyperbole within the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty document in the House of Commons Library, dated 18th May 2022 and The Lancet article ‘Effective Post-Pandemic Governance Must Focus on Shared Challenges’ 16th May 2022 there can be no doubt that what is being proposed is a ‘Whole of Government Whole of Society Approach’. That is a one world order.
Undoubtedly we all need safety and security in many aspects of our lives, e.g. food, health, life, religious expression, family life. It is vital that we can hold to account, scrutinise and review, sanction those in authority who unlawfully infringe our lives within these rights and freedoms, if not we will always be vulnerable to this unfair and unjust power differential.
When people are at their most vulnerable where power is being exercised over them, e.g. a complainant in a criminal case, it is precisely then that the people within and the system itself must proactively protect vulnerable people, especially children and seek to rebalance any power differential.
For example, it can be especially traumatic for children giving evidence in court. It is an anathema today the attitude of the courts and justice system previously towards children giving evidence, in R v Wright and Ormerod  90 CAR 9 citing R v Wallwork  42 CAR 153 as good authority for the view that ‘the jury could not attach any value to the evidence of a child of five; it is ridiculous to suppose they could’.
It staggeringly took 30 years from the Pigott Report in 1989 to the Case Management Crown Court – Re Protocols for Vulnerable Witnesses and Defendants. LCJ Office. Practice Direction No.2/2019 to enshrine ground rules providing protections in trials that fundamentally recognise the inalienable individualism of each person, particularly if vulnerable, in their journey through the justice system. No longer can a barrister, who is commutatively adept in a familiar environment exercise power over a vulnerable witness / defendant who is commutatively inept in an alienable environment, unfairly or unjustly and though hostile cross examination. No longer is it a one size fits all.
What is now recognised is that the concept of reaching a verdict through evidence and cross examination should not be the only measure of the desired consequence of a fair trial. It is now vital and necessary that the process should not traumatise any participant.
There is no reason why we cannot and should not apply this accepted legal doctrine, in the protection of vulnerable participants, to other aspects of our lives where vulnerability in the human condition can arise.
We believe that if our human family fail to discern the true intent of the WHO pandemic treaty and benignly acquiesce to accepting their abstract ideology of ‘ keeping the world safe and serve the vulnerable’ in the guise of collectivism through ‘attaining the highest level of health’ through ‘global governance’ there will be an absolute transfer of both sovereignty and allegiance from our human generational experiences of what is right and wrong and what we know causes us vulnerability to these abstract set of ideas.
For example, amendments proposed to the International Health Regulations are;
Assessments of Public Health – Article 12. Point 6 the Director General has absolute authority to issue an ‘intermediate public health alert’ and Point 7, a regional director can determine that an event constitutes a public health emergency of regional concern and notify to the Director General that this may constitute a public health emergency of international concern.
Offer of Assistance – Article 13. In response to Art 12 the WHO ‘shall’ offer assistance within which the state has 48 hours to accept the assistance, provide short term access to relevant sites or provide a rationale for refusal to WHO.
Temporary recommendations – Article 15. The short-term access may include ‘the deployment of expert teams’ as well as ‘health measures.
Our recent human experience, for example, in relation to when healthy people in our society were locked as a necessary measure to ‘keep us safe and protect the vulnerable’ for the desired consequence of ‘attaining the highest level of health’ has now been proven to have caused more harm than good.
We now know this through many examples none more so that the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Witty, in March of 2022, at a virtual event run by local association and the association of directors of public health, as reported by Laura Donnelly for the Telegraph, confirmed this very point in relation to children’s mental health.
Clearly this one size fits all, where collectivism overshadowed the needs of individual people, whether vulnerable or not, has been evidenced to be wrong because it is an abstract idea it is not our human lives where we can all depend upon each other to keep us safe when we are threatened and our lives and health are at risk. We are safest through our human community not ideologies and policies that cannot and should not be questioned or be sceptical about.
If we proceed with this treaty we will be arranging, once again, our society through science and technology. It has been shown that there has been combustible mixture of ignorance and power which has blown up in our faces, especially our children’s.
This begs the most important question, who is running the science and technology in our democracy if we do not know anything about it nor can scrutinise it? Science is more than a body on knowledge which our society has been instructed to follow. Science is a way of thinking, a way of sceptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask sceptical questions and interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious person or committee that comes along.
It is not enough for us to have our rights enshrined in a treaty or regulations we need to be educated and we need to practice our scepticism, our questioning, our doubt and our education otherwise we don’t run the government the government runs us.
There exist no protections to rebalance any potential power differential being exercised over our lives. There are no protocols to ensure that, as individuals, we can exercise and have our inalienable rights and freedoms protected within this collective or communal system. There are no provisions that allows us to make a choice in whom exercises power over us. There exists no means to practice scepticism and scrutinise decisions nor appeal those decisions through due process in accessing justice.
We should not have to ask for more, for our needs to be met let alone for our rights and freedoms from our government and no government, politician, scientist should sign away our rights and freedoms without our consent.