The WHO got a lot wrong during the COVID and is now playing for more authority and control
As you read this, the Trudeau Liberals — the Government of Canada — are getting ready to sign, on your behalf, the World Health Organization’s Convention on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.
This is a big deal.
If they do — and the Government of Canada has been all in from the start in 2021 — the next time there’s a worldwide pandemic, the public health orders will not be originating in Ottawa or the capital of your province. They will come from the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva and will be the work of their bureaucrats guided, one is invited to believe, by experts.
The role of Canadian officials will be reduced to conveying these orders. To you.
The convention is due to be signed by the end of this month. Here’s what they’re signing up for, on your behalf.
As a signatory to the agreement, Canada must ‘… undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.’
Canada must also promise to follow directions quickly: “Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations … shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties… State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”
And they must darn well silence any opposition. For, the UN has contrapted a neologism… infodemic.
That means “too much information, false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.”
Not surprisingly then, Article 18 of the agreement/convention/treaty or whatever it’s going to be, obliges signatories to stifle public discussion: “The Parties shall … combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… etc.”
The authors of Canada’s Online Harms Act , who love the idea of controlling speech and opinion, will have no trouble with that idea. Bill C-63 already provides that any citizen can approach any magistrate and file a restraining order against any other citizen, who they believe will say something hateful.
That doesn’t mean the magistrate will accept every assertion, but how exactly might that theory of pre-emptive justice have been adapted to stifle the voices of those who questioned COVID orthodoxy?
It is not commonly known but the WHO is already ‘on this.’ In May 2020, its parent body, the UN, issued a Guidance Note on Addressing and Countering COVID-19 related Hate Speech.
It is not that international cooperation is a bad thing. Actually, properly negotiated, it can make Canada better able to handle the next lab break when it happens.
However, we don’t need to be signing up for any kind of thought/speech control dicta from an organization that in the first place is dominated by countries with no free-speech tradition… and secondly, gets it wrong so often.
For, the World Health Organization did not do well during the COVID crisis. It has not earned the right to issue directions.
For example, it was justly criticised in early 2020 for minimising the epidemic, for fear of embarrassing China. (The PRC is a significant funder of the WHO.)
Part of that minimization was a bizarre tweet that “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
Not infectious, huh? Later came their idea that it was so infectious that everybody needed to be injected with something that wasn’t a vaccine, but was allegedly effective and… turned out to be less than completely so.
It was also two years before the WHO would admit the obvious, that the COVID virus was airborne. See here the WHO’s confident assertion that the droplets were too heavy to be passed along that way.
And so on.
Other countries — notably Great Britain — are now backing away. Cabinet Minister Esther McVey wrote recently in London’s Daily Telegraph, “People might be concerned that international organisations, like the World Health Organization, could acquire powers to force countries to adopt measures and restrictions. However, my ministerial colleagues and I would never give over any such powers to any organization, including the World Health Organization. Our red lines in the negotiations include not agreeing to anything that cedes sovereignty, protecting our ability to make all of our own domestic decisions on national public health measures, including whether to introduce any lockdowns or restrictions, require vaccinations and mask wearing, and decisions on travel into and out of the country.”
Ms. Mcvey, a former broadcaster, seems to get it. (So, by the way, does Canadian MP Leslyn Lewis.)
But, it is precisely these considerations that seem of no great consequence to the Trudeau Liberals as they negotiate the same convention. As the prime minister considers Canada to be a post-national state, we should perhaps not be surprised that he is so agreeable.
The rest of us have no reason to be. The World Health Organization’s response to criticism is that it could have done a better job with more power. This convention gives it to them.
As for the Trudeau Liberals this is nothing more than an excuse to exercise control and blame their ‘obligations’ on the UN. One more reason to move these people into retirement next year. One more job for another government, getting Canada out of another dangerous international commitment.
Meanwhile, best hope for no lab leaks.