Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pending International Treaty Empowering The WHO

By Dr Urmie Ray B.A., M.A., Mmath, Ph.d. | Principia Scientific | September 23, 2021 

Between 29 November and 1 December 2021, member states are meeting in a special session with the World Health Organisation to discuss, possibly sign, a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.

This decision was taken in March 2021 and backed by 26 nations, among which Australia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union.1

To be noted is the absence of Russia, China, and India among these 26.

The International Health Regulations (2005)[i] signed by 196 countries already provide States the legal right to:

“– review travel history in affected areas;

– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;

– require medical examinations;

– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;

– place suspect persons under public health observation;

– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;

– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;

– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;

– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;

– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and

– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

In other words, all the measures applied round the world since 2020, including mandatory vaccination, are in effect legal under this former treaty.

In particular, it critically changes the definition of “quarantine”  from that in the 1969 IHR. There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a … means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[i]

The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.

This represents a subtle but critical shift from protection of the community to restriction of individual liberties.

The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons” criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.

Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”. Of significance is the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a risk factor.

So Why The Need For A New Treaty?

The answer was given by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  “It’s the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization.”[i]

The 2005 revised IHR  still leave some authority to States and require certain conditions for a health event in a particular State to be considered sufficiently serious globally for the State to be forced to communicate it to WHO.   Once communicated, it becomes the prerogative of the director general of WHO to determine whether it “constitutes a public health emergency”, but in collaboration with that particular State.

Although it should be added that in case of disagreement, the director general decides after consultation with the emergency committee of WHO, and passed a certain period no State can reject or emit reservations about the IHR or any later amendments.    Still, to some extent, measures implemented remain the result of a dialogue between  “IHR focal points” in each country and “WHO IHR contact points”.

What is particularly important is that the above listed measures, although rendered legal by the IHR, can under this treaty, only be recommended by the WHO, not imposed, and that it is up to the States to proceed towards their imposition, and to verify they are followed by means already existing in their respective countries.[ii]

The new treaty would address the above “weaknesses” of the IHR as they are considered to be, by ensuring “independent verification, monitoring, and compliance”.  Given the clearly expressed end of empowering the WHO,  should one conclude that “independent” means under the authority of WHO rather than the States themselves?[i]

Further the IHR cover “public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern”,  whereas the treaty will concern “all hazards”, not just pandemics.  In the latter case, it would take over from the IHR once a pandemic is officially declared by the WHO.[ii]

This said, the treaty would presumably also make clear the idea expressed in the 2007 CDC “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[i] namely overruling the need of a pandemic to implement restrictive measures.  All that would be needed would be for an event to be declared a “public health emergency of pandemic potential”.

Given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period? For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur especially were the measures lifted.   This raises many questions, all the more so as the event would no long need to be of “international concern as in the current IHR”. “Measures”, as advised, should also go beyond the current scope of IHR”, in particular to cover the production and supply of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments”.[ii]

The treaty would unlike the IHR also go beyond sanitary issues and allow the implementation of measures against “social and economic disruptions” as well as “broader disaster risk”.[i]

Would this in effect not only make it legal to put an end to criticisms, and thus to the freedom of expression, and make it possible to control any public antagonism against restrictive measures through “urgent international assistance”,[ii] namely not just by national police or military forces, but international ones?  

In short, would the treaty not provide the international legal framework for derogation from the civil and political rights guaranteed “even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” by The Syracuse Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafted in 1984,[iii] namely:

“the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation”?

For the Syracuse Principles only ensure that “No state party shall” in any circumstance “derogate from the Covenant’s” above guarantees”.  However, according to the new treaty, would the WHO, possibly together with the help of other international bodies, not become an occupying planetary power, with each State a collaborating subservient unit, like France in 1940, and hence without any power to ensure that non-derogable rights are protected?

Last but not least,  “[t]rying to revise the IHR would be a long process and take several years. … In addition, any amendment made to the IHR will enter into force only two years after its adoption. A world in crisis cannot afford to wait this long.”[i] Why such a rush to get the treaty ratified?

It should not be forgotten that among the main contributors of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the vaccine alliance (GAVI). It established in 2000 and whose initial funding it essentially provided – a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[i]

References

[1]     https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA74/A74_ACONF7-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/31/1001943709/the-time-has-come-for-a-global-pandemic-treaty-whos-tedros-says?utm_source=dailybrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyBrief2021Jun1&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2007/cbnreport_02072007.html

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     Ibid.

[1]     https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf

[1]     https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief

[1]     https://www.gavi.org/history-gavi

September 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NONE OF THE ABOVE: THOUGHTS ON TWO ELECTIONS

BY PAUL ROBINSON | IRRUSIANALITY | SEPTEMBER 18, 2021

Citizens of Russia and Canada go to the polls over the next few days to elect new parliaments – the Duma in Russia’s case, the House of Commons in that of Canada. It’s fair to say that neither is generating a lot of international excitement. In Russia’s case, because the result is (within certain boundaries) a foregone conclusion; and in Canada’s case because nobody cares.

Insofar as the Canadian press is covering the Russian election, it’s to portray it as fundamentally flawed, if not downright corrupt – a pretence at democracy rather than the real thing. Typical is the latest by the CBC’s new Moscow correspondent Briar Stewart, which starts off by quoting the campaign manager of the liberal Yabloko party in Krasnodar, saying that, “the State Duma election is the most terrible election I have seen since my birth.” The rest of the article then hammers home the point in case any readers hadn’t got it already.

There’s an element of truth to the complaints about the Russian elections, although it’s worth noting that the authorities’ manipulation of the system occurs primarily before votes are cast rather than after. That’s to say that the ‘managed’ party of ‘managed democracy’ mainly involves making life difficult for opposition candidates, limiting their access to the media, and things like that, rather than practices like ballot stuffing or falsifying the count (not to say that these practices don’t happen, but the general feeling is that the authorities prefer to limit them so as to avoid ridiculous results that lack legitimacy).

Nevertheless, although the playing field is far from a level one, when Russian voters head into the booths to cast their ballots, they have quite a lot of choice.

It’s reckoned that four or five parties will gain seats in the Duma via the proportional representation system that assigns half the total to those parties that win over 5% (the other half are chosen by first-past-the-post constituency elections). Most of these likely winners fall, I would say, in the left-conservative bracket, but there’s a lot of variation – from the hard left Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), through the also fairly left wing Just Russia party, the centrist United Russia, the centre-right New People (the least likely to pass the 5% hurdle), and the nationalist LDPR.

If those aren’t to your liking, there’s another 9 parties on the ballot papers. Most are no-hopers, though one or two might win a constituency here or there. For instance, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that the CPRF has sold out communism, you can vote for the more hardcore Communists of Russia. Or, likewise, if you think that the LDPR are a bunch of softies and you want tougher action on issues like immigration, you can throw your support behind Rodina. Or, if you’re liberally-inclined and think that New People are Kremlin stooges, you can put your cross next to the name of Yabloko (also Kremlin stooges according to the bizarre logic of the Navalnyites) or the more free market-inclined Party of Growth.

In other words, despite all the manipulations of the authorities, even if the final result is not in doubt (United Russia will win a majority), once you’re in voting booth ready to cast your secret ballot you actually have a lot of options open to you.

Now, let’s look at Canada.

Outside of Quebec (where you also have the separatist Bloc Quebecois), there’s only three options if you want to vote for somebody who win will a seat: Liberal, Conservative, and NDP (Green might pick up one seat, but overall are somewhere around 3% in the polls). The only other party likely to get a reasonable number of votes is the People’s Party of Canada, which is enjoying a surge (6-7%), primarily, it seems, by appealing to anti-vaxxers. But it has no chance of winning any seats and is thus a wasted vote except as a protest.

In other words, in real terms you have a choice of three parties. Let’s see what distinguishes them. As far as I can see, their platforms run roughly as follows:

Party A: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend. Party B: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend! Party C: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend some more!

Party A: Here’s the list of interest groups I want to throw money at. Party B: Here’s my list. Look it’s even longer. Party C: Hah, you think your list is long – look at mine!

Party A: Woke is good. Party B: Woke is extra good. Party C: Woke is extra, extra good.

Party A: Russia is evil. Party B: Russia is very evil. Party C: Russia is very super evil.

Party A: We’ll be tough on China. Party B: We’ll be extra tough on China. Party C: We’ll be extra, mega tough on China. (Of course, in practice, none of them will!)

By now you get the point. It doesn’t really matter who you vote for, you end up with pretty much the same thing. That’s not to say that there are no differences, but they’re not on fundamentals. Basically, it’s three variations of a theme.

So there you have it. In one country, you have lots of choice, but the system’s fixed to make sure the same guys always win. In the other, it’s a fair fight – anyone can win – it just doesn’t matter who does – they’re all the same. You might say that one is rigged at the micro level, while the other is rigged at the macro level.

Which is better? I’ll leave it to you to decide. Meanwhile, I have the difficult decision as to whether Party A, Party B, or Party C is more worthy of my vote on Monday. What a choice!

SHARE THIS:

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Cuba Says ‘Mysterious Syndrome’ is Not Scientifically Plausible

teleSUR | September 13, 2021

A technical report was released Monday by a multidisciplinary research team created by the Cuban Academy of Sciences (ACC) on the “unidentified health incidents” reported in Havana in which some U.S. employees complained of various symptoms when they were stationed in Havana. Similar symptoms apparently appeared in some Canadian citizens and, later, in U.S. employees in other countries.

The report debunks a narrative it calls “mystery syndrome,” which assumes that the cause of these incidents are attacks with some unidentified energy weapon. Its authors reveal that the narrative is based on the following – unverified – claims:

1) A novel syndrome with shared core symptoms and signs is present in the affected employees;

2) It is possible to detect in these employees brain damage originating during their stay in Havana;

3) A directed energy source exists that could affect people’s brains from great distances after crossing the physical barriers of homes or hotel rooms;

4) A weapon capable of generating such a physical agent is achievable and identified;

5) Evidence of an attack was discovered;

6): The available evidence rules out alternative medical explanations.

The report critically examines the plausibility of these claims and the evidence on which they are based, concluding that the “mystery syndrome” narrative is not scientifically acceptable in any of its components and has only survived because of a biased use of science.

Although the report lacks some information, it provides plausible interpretations that fit the available facts better than the “mystery syndrome” narrative, based on published reports in the United States and Canada and field studies in Havana.

The text details the arguments for these interpretations, which are that:

Possibly some U.S. employees while stationed in Havana felt ill due to a heterogeneous collection of medical conditions, some pre-existing before going to Cuba and others acquired due to simple or well-known causes.

Many diseases prevalent in the general population can explain most of the symptoms. Thus, there is no novel syndrome (something evident in the official U.S. reports). Only a minority of people have detectable brain dysfunction, most due to experiences prior to their stay in Havana and others due to well-known medical conditions.

No known form of energy can selectively cause brain damage (with spatial precision similar to a laser beam) under the conditions described for the alleged Havana incidents.

The laws of physics governing sound, ultrasound, infrasound or radio frequency waves (including microwaves) do not permit this. These forms of energy could not have damaged brains without being felt or heard by others, without disturbing electronic devices in the case of microwaves, or without producing other injuries (such as ruptured eardrums or skin burns).

The report assures that at no time was anything of the sort reported. Although there are weapons that use sound or microwaves they are large in size and there is no possibility that this type of weapon would not go unnoticed (or leave a trace) if it had been deployed in Havana. Neither the Cuban Police, nor the F.B.I., nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have discovered evidence of “attacks” on diplomats in Havana despite intensive investigations.

Finally, psychogenic and toxic explanations for many symptoms in some cases were rejected by adequate research. Specifically, all the conditions for the psychogenic spread of distress were present in this episode, including probably an inadequate initial medical response, early official U.S. government endorsement of an “attack” theory, and sensationalist media coverage, among others.

The experts stand ready to revise its conclusions if new evidence emerges, inviting efforts to refute its interpretations in a climate of open scientific collaboration. However, it firmly rejects as “established truth” a narrative built on flimsy foundations and flawed scientific practice. An example is the idea that there was an “attack,” which is accepted as “established truth without critical thinking.”

Some scientific articles – and most of the news read – accept as an axiom that there were attacks in Havana, so they take it as an idea on which to build theories. However, after four years, no evidence of attacks has surfaced, making it time to rethink the narrative, the report’s authors hold.

September 14, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA: ETHICS 101 – DR. JULIE PONESSE

Bitchute

Dr. Julie Ponesse, professor of Ethics at the University of Western Ontario, provides a lesson in courage and integrity.

CAN VACCINES BE IMPOSED ON US? THE SHORT ANSWER PRESENTED BY THE CANADIAN COVID CARE ALLIANCE

Youtube

Dr Julie Ponesse, a professor of ethics at the University of Western Ontario and a member of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance on the current vaccine mandates and passports in the context of our existing informed consent laws and commitments to privacy and bioethics.

Links to documents referenced in this video:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/download-order-charter-bill/canadian-charter-rights-freedoms-eng.pdf
Supreme Court Judgment Cuthbertson v. Rasouli
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13290/index.do

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/bioethics-and-human-rights

Nuremberg Code – NEJM
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006?articleTools=true

Letter to Bonnie Henry from Dr. Charles Hoffe
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/in-the-news/open-letter-to-dr-bonnie-henry-from-bc-physician-re-moderna-vaccine-reactions/

Pfizer Clinical Trial
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

CPSO Warning to Doctors
https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformation

Dr Martin Kulldorff Quote
https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1431220427758710784

Dr Byram Bridle Quote
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/a-parent-guide-to-covid-19-vaccination/

Dr. Carl Heneghan Quote
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/23/the-harm-done-by-lockdown-will-last-for-decades/

ETHICS PROFESSOR JULIE PONESSE: “WE FIND OURSELVES IN A MORAL PANIC AND A STATE OF FEAR”

Julie E. Ponesse is a professor in the Philosophy department at Western University in London, Ontario.

She talks about ethics in the time of Covid and sounds the alarm on the catastrophic harm being done.

Download the video:
https://dlsharefile.com/file/OTJiOTQ5MTMt

September 12, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Covid-19 – Fun With Figures, Food For Thought

By William Walter Kay BA JD | Principia Scientific | September 9, 2021

Contrast Covid’s impact on four East Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and South Korea) with its impact on four US Northeastern states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut).

All eight jurisdictions host high-tech societies with market-orientated economies and democratic constitutions.

All boast ultra-modern hospitals, medical colleges and public health programs.

Two differences: a) compared to the US Northeast, the East Asian countries engage in more trade and travel with Covid’s epicentre, China; and, b) Covid toured East Asia before debuting in the US Northeast.

New York state’s population (19.5 million) is slightly smaller than Taiwan’s (23.8 million). Covid has killed 837 Taiwanese, and 54,895 New Yorkers.

Massachusetts’ population (6.9 million) is comparable to Singapore’s (5.9 million). Covid fatalities in Massachusetts – 18,272. Covid fatalities in Singapore – 55.

The combined population of our four Northeastern states (38.7 million) is well below South Korea’s (51.3 million). Covid’s death toll in our Northeastern states is 108,480. Only 2,303 South Koreans have died from Covid.

Our four East Asian countries (207 million) register a total of 19,308 Covid deaths. New Jersey  (8.9 million) claims 26,919 Covid deaths.

Per capita, Covid has proven 341 times deadlier to New Jersians than Singaporeans!

Regarding Covid testing rates, Singapore is East Asia’s outlier. By conducting 17.8 million tests Singaporeans have achieved 3 tests per citizen. This still falls short of New York’s 3.3 tests per citizen and Massachusetts’ 3.8 tests per citizen. (You’ve read correctly. Certain people get tested again and again.)

Most East Asian countries, following Japan’s lead, test only patients exhibiting pneumonia-like symptoms. Japan tests 174,000 per 1 million inhabitants. Our four East Asian countries cumulatively have conducted 58 million tests. New York has conducted 66 million.

Massachusettsans test for Covid at 22 times Japan’s rate!

Medical tyranny boosters attribute East Asia’s “success” to harsh public health regimes; but Northeastern states imposed notorious lockdowns, often more Draconian than those deployed in East Asia.

Testing strategies are key. Testing only symptomatic patients is sounder than mass testing.

Asymptomatic Sars-CoV-2 carriers are extremely unlikely to be contagious.

Most people who contract Sars-CoV-2 become neither sick nor contagious.

PCR tests detect: a) miniscule infections that will not take hold; b) dead viruses from infections defeated by natural immune responses; and c) random genetic flotsam resembling Sars-CoV-2.

Mass testing yields positive results from persons who are neither sick nor contagious, and who are unlikely to become so.

By inflating case counts, mass testing makes Covid appear worse than it is.

Likewise, declaring all those who die after testing positive to be “Covid fatalities” – co-morbidities be damned – inflates death tallies; again, making Covid appear worse than it is.

Testing-based legerdemain doesn’t fully explain the whopping discrepancy between Covid’s impact in East Asia and the US Northeast.

This discrepancy also arises from the fact that the US Northeast was one of several areas following Milan’s lead i.e., during the pandemic’s early months health authorities allowed the contagion to rage unchecked through long-term care facilities.

Senior’s homes became Sars-CoV-2 incubators.

Milan, Montreal, the US Northeast et al became continental super-spreaders evidenced by supersized body counts.

Covid-19 is one matter; government response to Covid-19 is quite another.

Sources

Covid fatality and testing stats were extracted from Worldmeter’s Covid database on September 2, 2021.

September 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

People’s Party of Canada is the only federal election candidate that opposes vaccine passports

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 9, 2021

With the Canadian federal election less than two weeks away, only one of the top six parties has definitively opposed COVID vaccine passports and vowed to repeal them if elected; Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada.

The other parties – Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party of Canada, Erin O’Toole’s Conservative Party, Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrat Party, Yves-François Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois, Annamie Paul’s Green Party of Canada – have either expressed support for vaccine passports or not made a definitive statement on the issue.

The People’s Party’s COVID policy takes a strong stance against vaccine passports and includes a plan that details how the party intends to repeal and oppose vaccine passports and mandates if elected.

“Governments don’t want to admit that they were wrong and are imposing increasingly authoritarian measures on the population, including vaccine passports,” the People’s Party states in its COVID policy. “Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated will suffer under a regime of segregation, constant control, and surveillance. It is illusory to believe that the virus can be eradicated. We have to learn to live with it, without destroying our way of life in the process.”

The People’s Party also notes that “both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can get infected and transmit the virus, which negates the rationale for segregation and vaccine passports.”

If elected, the People’s Party has promised to:

  • Repeal vaccine passports for travelers
  • Repeal vaccine mandates and regular testing for federal civil servants and workers in federally regulated industries
  • Oppose vaccine mandates and passports imposed by provincial governments and support individuals and groups that challenge such measures in court

In addition to this strong stance against vaccine passports and mandates, the People’s Party has also vowed to promote an approach to the pandemic that “guarantees the freedom of Canadians to make decisions based on informed consent, and rejects coercion and discrimination.”

The People’s Party also promises to not follow the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) – a group whose recommendations have been used by Big Tech to justify the mass censorship of debate and dissent on a wide range of COVID-related topics.

To achieve this, the party vows to fire the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Theresa Tam if elected and replace her with “someone who will work with provincial agencies to implement a rational approach to the pandemic, instead of following the recommendations of the World Health Organization.”

Bernier has consistently reiterated the People’s Party’s strong stance against vaccine passports by displaying banners with a “No Vax Passports” slogan during campaign stops, speaking out against vaccine passports, and attending vaccine passport protests.

“Vaccine passports are inefficient, unconstitutional and immoral,” Bernier told True North in August. “They will not prevent the spread of the virus because we now know that vaccinated people can also spread it. They would create two types of citizens with different rights. I don’t want to live in a ’show-me-your-papers’ society. If that happens, whether you are vaccinated or not will be irrelevant. Everyone will lose their freedoms and suffer in a surveillance and police state.”

By contrast, Trudeau’s Liberals have promised a $1 billion COVID-19 proof-of-vaccination fund to assist provinces in developing and implementing their own systems. Trudeau has described provincial vaccine passports as an “interim measure, that will perhaps last a year or so” before federal vaccine passports are promised to support businesses that are sued for forcing vaccine passports.

O’Toole’s Conservatives and Singh’s New Democrats have also expressed support for a federal vaccine passport while Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois supports vaccine passports for international travel.

Paul’s Green Party has yet to make a definitive statement on vaccine passports. In August, Paul questioned the Liberals’ motives in announcing a plan for mandatory vaccination two days before calling an election and called for information on “how the plan will accommodate people with legitimate reasons for not getting vaccinated.”

Local Green Party candidates have given conflicting answers on vaccine passports. Simcoe North Green Party candidate Krystal Brooks stated “I believe vaccine passports should be mandatory for essential workers to decrease the spread” while Kootenay-Columbia Green Party candidate Rana Nelson said “We, as in the Green Party, are not going to force vaccines.”

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Legal Information About How To Refuse Vaccine Mandates, Etc.

Weston A Price Foundation, London Chapter | July 27, 2021

Below is a helpful guide for anyone in the common law nations (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc) concerned about unlawful impositions of COVID19 government mandates on vaccines, masks, exemptions, etc.

Vaccines in UK are not mandatory. There is an exemption on evidence of medical reasons and the Supreme Court recognises at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. See Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11  https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf …In R Wilkinson v Broadmoor : [2001] EWCA Civ 1545

In that case Lady Justice Hale, Supreme Court President, confirmed that forced medical procedure without informed consent “may be sued in the ordinary way for the (common law) tort of battery”.  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1545.html …In the judgement it was held that acting under statutory authority provides no defence, therefore the Employer will be guilty of coercion on the threat of battery with regards to unlawful dismissal if express evidence of denial of informed consent are unlawfully rejected.This will result in a breach of contract and also a Tort that can be sued.

The Above Is Why Mask “Mandate” Exemptions Were Self Certified.

It is unlawful for Doctors to interfere with the process of free and informed consent. Informed consent is defined in Montgomery as follows:

  1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
  2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments (and forms of testing).
  3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical intervention and the material risks of declining it.If consent is given but the Patient subsequently proves that information provided at the time breached the above common law test of informed consent, the Tort of battery is committed and the medication is unlawful.

The High Court has found children incapable of providing Gillick Competency for experimental medicines with unknown long term effects. Schools therefore risk being sued for battery if ignoring Parental preferences.

See Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf …

These principles are discussed without reference to case law on this important NHS page on Free and Informed Consent and Gillick Competency.  See:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/ …

The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent, based on the ancient Tort of battery (tresspass to the person), are valid in all 16 Commonwealth Realms and both the Republic of Ireland and USA, where English common law is retained as a body of law.

In Ireland, evidence that English common law rights are retained can be found in the Statute Revision Act (2007) which retained Magna Carta and most of the English Bill of Rights (1688) and much, much more.  http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/enacted/en/html …

In USA, English common law rights are retained by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, hence why US courts refer to them.  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-

9/ … Law that provides rights sit above normal laws in English law and provide lawful excuse to statutory obligations with this acknowledged by courts. see Art.29 Magna Carta (1297), which states: “we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX …

Another case to read is Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62 regarding Doctor’s obligation to provide information to inform consent.  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/62.html …

Happy for Solicitors to DM and work with me or folk who want to work on template letters to send out.For those not familiar with our organisation, here are the articles we have written on Covid.  See: https://www.westonaprice.org/coronavirus/

Covid passports also recognise self certified free and informed consent.

“If you have a medical reason which means you cannot be vaccinated or tested, you may be asked to self-declare this medical exemption.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass …

Also see Art.IV Acts of Union (1706-7):

“That all the Subjects of the UK of GB shall from & after the Union have full freedom & Intercourse of Trade & Navigation to & from any port or place within the said UK & the Dominions” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/4 …

For our friends in New Zealand, you also have these common law rights, but additionally, Art.11 of your 1990 Bill of Rights states: ”Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.” https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html …

Full thread

September 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VACCINATION: THEY’RE BECOMING DESPERATE

Computing Forever | August 21, 2021

Support my work here: https://computingforever.com/donate/
Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/
Buy How is This a Thing Mugs here: https://teespring.com/stores/computing-forever-store

Source links:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-community-mourning-tributes-paid-24786114

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2021/0818/1241521-ex-waterford-united-player-roy-butler-dies-aged-23/

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/waterford-football-community-pays-tribute-to-roy-butler-who-has-passed-awayaged-23-40766084.html

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/08/travel-croatia-austria-vaccine-expiry-booster/

http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ComputingForever

September 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

A Letter to the Vaccinated

Ontario Civil Liberties Association | August 29, 2021

Following their “Open Letter to the Unvaccinated”, an expanding group of Canadian scholars has now written a letter addressing “the vaccinated”. The writers expose the divisiveness of vaccination status and denounce the resulting rift in society.

Giving up civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of safety is futile. We must not accept a descent into medical apartheid in Canada and around the world.

The letter appeals both to those who chose to take the vaccine and those who were coerced. It reflects on the broader implications of our actions in an effort to collaborate on a constructive path forward.

Open Letter to the Vaccinated

Prime Minister Trudeau recently warned that “there will be consequences” if federal employees do not comply with vaccine mandates. This is a voice of tyranny that has reverberated fear and heightened agitation across our country. It has launched our nation into deep division around mass vaccination and brought our collective recovery from this pandemic to a critical head. In fact, it forces us, as a country, to finally ask: indeed, what are those consequences?

What are the societal consequences of being divided along the lines of vaccination status? What are the consequences of mandating such an insufficiently tested medical intervention? How is this all supposed to end well?

The consequences will be dire, to be certain. And the consequences will affect all of us, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike.

Over the last six months, many of us made our decision to accept the vaccine in good faith – doing the right thing in order to work, travel and visit the people we love. Sadly, some of us have been pressured or coerced. And now, mounting evidence worldwide shows that these vaccines cannot stop the transmission of the virus and variants, yet vaccination mandates continue.

Meanwhile, the pharma corporations are earning billions of dollars of public money, and pushing to fast-track the vaccines towards full approval, without due process or public discussion. It is abundantly clear that when money and politics intertwine, science and ethics take a back seat.

Maybe you once resented those who hesitated to get the vaccine, as people who were not doing their part; but maybe it is time to consider that we have all become passengers on the same runaway train. The meaning of “fully vaccinated” is rapidly changing as leaders demand the next booster upgrade and threaten ousting us from public spaces if we don’t comply. So, if you are among the “fully vaccinated” today, by tomorrow you may become one of the “insufficiently vaccinated” and be coerced into taking another shot.

If history is any indication, this will not stop with barring admission to concerts or bars. When you can no longer buy food, access banking, vote in person or cross a provincial border, it will be crystal clear that the same discriminatory practices that you hope to abolish will be ever more firmly established. The real consequences await all of us.

Perhaps you’ve had your full round of doses and are now having doubts about whether to continue based on the alarming number of infections among the vaccinated. Or maybe you know someone who has been vaccine-injured or are concerned about the mounting death reports in conjunction with vaccinations.

We keep asking ourselves, “Why is the data not allowed to be scrutinized and why are independent experts being censored if they attempt to do just that?” It is incomprehensible, and decidedly un-Canadian, to see the silencing of highly regarded doctors and health scientists in our country and around the globe.

History has taught us that one-sided arguments and outlawed dissent are signs of totalitarianism lurking at the doorstep. Soon, asking questions will make you an enemy of the State. Mandating vaccines is a breaking point. “My body, my choice” has been one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society, but this is changing. Canadians are being robbed of personal decision making.

With lockdowns already scheduled for the fall, and boosters at the ready, we are entering a watershed moment. Are we all willing to continue being injected indefinitely? In Canadian provinces and around the world vaccine passports are demonstrating our new, long-term relationship with medical coercion in exchange for basic freedoms. Thus far, each treatment has been promised to be the last, but it couldn’t be clearer that there is no end in sight.

And now they’re coming for our children.

With extremely low risk of becoming ill and practically no risk of dying from COVID-19, the mass vaccination of children and adolescents remains unwarranted. Lining up our healthy children for medical treatment was never part of the deal. Most disturbingly of all, we are being primed for mass vaccination campaigns in our schools that do not require parental consent. Does the government decide what is best for our children? Without question, the family ties that bind us are being undone. Justifiably, parents are appalled by this unprecedented overreach and are debating pulling their children out of schools.

Despite our best intentions, families are scarred, friends are divided, and partners are at odds with each other. We have been weakened by our division and manipulated through fear.

Just how far will we allow this to go? “All the way!” some of us declare. But “all the way” is a place we will never reach. We need to stop this medical catastrophe and face the truth: this isn’t about our health; it is about politics and it is about control.

The consequences of following Prime Minister Trudeau’s current orders are greater than his threatened consequences. We entered into this for one another, not for our politicians. We have done what we felt we had to do, and now we must say, ‘This is far enough, no more!’

Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Amanda Euringer, Journalist
Claus Rinner, PhD
Maximilian C. Forte, PhD
Julie Ponesse, PhD
Michael Owen, PhD
Donald G. Welsh, PhD

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

DR. DAVID E. MARTIN DROPS SHOCKING COVID-19 TRUTH ON CANADIANS

August 26, 2021

AWESOME interview conducted by Vaccine Choice Canada, August 21. Dr. David Martin reveals shocking news everyone, especially Canadians must demand authorities investigate – potentially treasonous acts and crimes against humanity.

To keep current with Dr. Martin’s work visit -Activate Humanity: https://www.activatehumanity.com/ Butterfly of the Week Sources: https://www.activatehumanity.com/posts/butterfly-sources

Dr. David E. Martin: https://www.davidmartin.world/

The Fauci COVID-19 Dossier: https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The_Fauci_COVID-19_Dossier.pdf

Reiner Fuelmich interview:https://brandnewtube.com/watch/a-manufactured-illusion-dr-david-martin-with-reiner-fuellmich-9-7-21_hPChWe1no7nxGDM.htmlTranscript of Interview: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19o1BeQa6z9XD58GkYE1e-qiiNbnr5wTz/view

Stew Peters interviews with Dr. David Martin:https://odysee.com/@Truth_Comes_to_Light:6/Dr.-David-Martin-w-Stew-Peters:bhttps://rumble.com/vk2bya-exclusive-dr.-david-martin-just-ended-covid-fauci-doj-politicians-in-one-in.html

Join the FIGHT for our FREEDOM. Become a member of Vaccine Choice Canada and stay informed!https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/join/

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Alberta government refuses to take part in digital vaccine passports

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 28, 2021

The government of the Canadian Province of Alberta has refused to share its residents’ vaccination status data with the federal government. Other provinces are cooperating with the government and have even launched vaccine passport plans.

In a press release, the Alberta Institute, a non-profit, said that the provincial government had confirmed to it, and “then later publicly announced, that they will not be providing the federal government with Albertans’ vaccination status and data for use in a federal vaccine pass system.”

“Albertans will be able to opt-in to provide their information to the federal government should they choose to do so,” the press release added.

Alberta seems to be the only province choosing to protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of its residents. The provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, and Manitoba are working on their own vaccine passport programs.

Quebec will launch its vaccination certification system in September.

“Quebec’s Health Department says police complaints have been filed after politicians’ COVID-19 vaccine passport information was allegedly hacked,” stated a report from FM96. “The department said in a statement Friday it is aware of reports that people have managed to steal the QR codes of members of the Quebec legislature and is taking the matter seriously.”

British Columbia is also set to launch a vaccine passport that would be required to access many businesses.

BC’s system will be one of the most restrictive in the world as it does not allow for any religious or medical exemptions.

While on the re-election campaign trail in Ontario on Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised, if re-elected (the election is on September 20th), the Liberal government would create a $1 billion fund to be used by provincial governments to develop and launch vaccine passport systems.

August 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »