There are places Stuff, NZH & RNZ won't go ...
This includes informing civil society of the pros and cons of the UN/WHO's upcoming binding treaties.
Do moves by the World Health Organization (together with the UN) constitute a massive over-reach, a mission creep that might compromise public health rather than ‘saving’ it?
A decades old practice where governments tacitly accept new International Health Regulation amendments (IHRA) - a process viewed as relatively benign in the past because they were non-binding…
… is now a very different animal - because new IHRAs will be binding. Not only this, that timetables to accept future amendments are being shortened. If we were to reject this shortening of timetables (Article 59 Amendments) we have to opt-out by end of November 2023.
Failing to opt out might represent a major departure from good process. The WHO in Geneva would have shortened times to deliberate. 307 amendments are proposed, along with a massive ‘WHO CA+’ treaty proposal. Do citizens have time to comment to their governments on these big amendments in the pipeline? Will governments honestly review and discuss what these proposals mean?
Many people doubt this.
If the hundreds of amendments treaties are now binding - the content of those amendments is really quite important.
We’re seeing a railroading of historic public health norms. WHO discussions very much focus on product delivery and surveillance, following the COVID-19 precedent. I’ve discussed previously that during COVID-19
a weakening of democratic and ethical norms occurred, excluding important processes that would guard against bias and promote transparency and accountability in decision-making.
There would be even less capacity to challenge decisions if they were directed from Geneva. But New Zealand’s MSM/legacy media is uninterested in these discussions.
With binding treaties, in, for example, a pandemic (high viral transmission) event, parliamentary decision-making would be by-passed, a departure from democratic norms and deliberative processes. How can Geneva know what is best for New Zealand? How are we at risk? What is the collateral impact? What sub-populations should be protected? How do we protect children? Low-income groups? What happens in lock-downs to people with precarious employment? How do we judge what policies to put in place that result in the least harm being done to vulnerable populations, such as babies, children and young people who could be harmed for a much longer time from a given ‘intervention’. What does this mean for constitutional law, for non-Māori and for Māori?
Mission creep has been going on for a while. WHO pandemic announcements used to be based on infectious disease spread that would send most of us to hospital or kill us. But now pandemic announcements can be based on infectivity.
I’m also very aware the WHO culture has changed markedly. The WHO has much closer relationships with NGOs that have very close relationships with patent-holders of biotechnologies and digital tracking software. Fifty years ago, this was not the case.
Four documents being prepared jointly by the UN and the WHO treaties together produce a framework around Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response. These documents will be binding.
According to Cabinet & MSM/legacy NZ media - No worries mate.
In November Cabinet decided that halving timeframes is not a problem, (even if the new Māori Health Authority thought it might be a problem).
Our legacy media isn’t worried either. They haven’t looked broadly at the overarching structure nor sought out critical voices to broadly inform Kiwis on this matter.
The attitude is patronising. In May Stuff’s fact-checking project told us that we’re not being deprived of our sovereignty.
Neither the treaty, still in draft form, nor the proposed IHR amendments, would give the WHO control over domestic health policies in Aotearoa New Zealand, or any other country.
Stuff didn’t go into the nature of the binding obligations. They haven’t discussed this since May. They’re certainly not discussing the end-of-month November deadline (for the Article 59 Amendments) where, by not doing anything (tacit acceptance), we agree to fast track decision-making.
What about Radio New Zealand? They’re not considering the implications of a shortened time-frame either:
RNZ have not critically assessed what a binding treaty might mean for New Zealand.
In January, RNZ published Baker and friend’s: The costly lesson from Covid-19: why elimination should be the default global strategy for future pandemics.
Baker et al appear to be gospel. According to this group, a stronger WHO means that we can go harder and faster and the next pandemic will be over in 8 weeks. Because:
the idea of eliminating novel emerging infectious diseases at the earliest possible stage is intuitively appealing and not new.And what a relief, the New Zealand Herald also published the Michael Baker article in January: The costly lesson from Covid-19: Why elimination should be the default global strategy for future pandemics.
Because it is intuitively appealing.
Both RNZ and New Zealand carry the same messaging. We just need to go harder and faster, and we can rely on the WHO to carry this through. Apparently,
‘elimination makes sense as the default approach.’
We presume that every individual would be required to … lock-step. And the best news?
‘Upgraded International Health Regulations could stimulate a huge global investment in infrastructure to stop epidemics at source and improve surveillance capacity.
I’ve discussed the elimination approach in the past.
Has NZH taken steps to inform the public of the pros and cons of a shortened time frame, and that New Zealand would opt out by end November.
It doesn’t appear so. I can’t find a search engine on Newshub. Neither TVNZ, Newsroom, The Spinoff, NewsTalkZB is not carrying this content.
But the problem is, they’re not even giving us the chance to think this over.
It’s an effective media blackout.
Does RNZ have a responsibility to inform New Zealanders and not just print an article by lockdown/elimination advocates? I believe so.
WHO’S TALKING ABOUT THE WHO & IHRAS IF LEGACY MEDIA ISN’T?
The World Council for Health released a Policy Brief in May 2023.
Voices for Freedom (VFF) have released an explainer: The WHO’s Power Grab in the name of health
The 4 treaties will hand the WHO the authority to make binding directions on how a country is required to respond to a potential public health emergency (not an actual one). The WHO will be able to order measures including significant financial contributions from individual Member States, censor scientific debate, order lockdowns, restrict travel, force medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations, all in the name of health.
In November, lawyer Kirsten Murfitt published an Open Letter to Parliament.
Murfitt also has a petition available for signing on Parliament’s website. Deadline for signatures November 27, 2023. To date over 4,000 have signed. It states:
I believe the proposed amendments to the IHR and the proposed international agreement on pandemic prevention would establish the WHO as the controlling authority of global health. I believe this means individual nations would surrender their sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats with discretionary powers to lockdown their citizens and economy for any international public health emergency. If NZ does not formally reject the amendments by 1 December 2023, we will be deemed to have accepted them.
Journalist Keri Molloy has been following this issue.
An OpEd in the Daily Telegraph (NZ) calls it the most dangerous treaty ever proposed.
Australian David Bell, public health physician and biotech consultant in global health is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO). Bell writes at Brownstone Institute.
Substack writer James Roguski has been working to inform and to assist people to think critically about what the IHRAs may mean for years.
I’m proud to be joining others in helping Kiwi’s understand the implications of ignoring the WHO - and why saying no in November is important.
More to come.