By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
TRY as you may big pharma and your Australian “public health” puppets, but there’s no free run for your Covid crap this time round, including your latest attempt at getting the sheep to don their masks.
A highly relevant common law precedent has been set at the King’s Bench Court in Calgary, Canada, where the city council has been forced to drop all the charges against a pizza business following a constitutional challenge brought by The Democracy Fund (TDF).
The pizzeria, which called itself No Papers Pizza, was charged in October 2021 with breaching multiple bylaws after its business license was suspended for not complying with so-called “public health orders”, including serving pizza without proof of vaccination.
The same “public health orders” scam was used in Australia during the Covid plandemic. But the Alberta King’s Bench found that the health orders in question were ultra vires the Public Health Act as they were made by the provincial cabinet as opposed to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, which is what the law required.
Similarly in Australia, state health departments overrode Commonwealth legislation such as the Biosecurity Act 2015, which was designed to deal with national biosecurity threats.
In actions reminiscent of Dan Andrews’ Covid regime, undercover inspectors were sent by the City of Calgary’s dirty little bureaucrats to to purchase pizza and remain in the restaurant without providing proof of vaccination. Other grievous offences committed under the Covid tyranny included not displaying prescribed signage, contrary to bylaws passed by the City of Calgary.
Lawyers for the pizzeria argued in their constitutional application that the bylaws in question were implementing public health orders that were found to be invalid by judges of the Court of King’s Bench.
Democracy Fund lawyers commented that the legal victory was “no doubt bittersweet for Without Papers Pizza and its owner, Jesse Clay Johson, as the pizzeria was forced into insolvency because of the implementation of provincial health orders.”
The constitutional application described Without Papers Pizza as a “landmark institution” in Calgary that supported community music festivals and donated pizzas to flood-ravaged communities and homeless shelters. The business was frequently voted as having the best pizza in Calgary.
The Democracy Fund was founded in 2021, and is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education, supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.
Office for National Statistics (UK) on covid-19 deaths
Statistics are now available about covid-19 deaths in England. It appears that in the year ending May 31, 2023 only 5% of the deaths happened to those who were unvaccinated. The more vaccines and boosters people received, the more they died. 95% of the covid casualties were from the vaccinated group.
Remember when Biden told us that only unvaccinated people would die of covid?
The caveat here is that hospitals were paid a lot of money to treat covid patients. So many cases of the common flu were attributed to covid in order to gain more government subsidies. Even so, it is of interest to note that unvaccinated people had a far greater survival rate.
Nonetheless, the Canadian parliament has failed to learn this lesson. Bill C-278 to ban vaccine mandates failed by a vote of 114-205.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-backed-anti-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-bill-fails-to-pass-house-1.6616778
Alison said – “Malcolm Roberts has been consistently calling for Australia to withdraw from the United Nations and the WHO for many years…”
Thanks for posting this update re Senator Roberts and the WHO.
IMO, a key quote…
“… the WHO can’t be trusted…”
… which should frame our entire disposition toward this unelected Globalist-owned organ headed by a known mass-murdering terrorist.
The clear solution remains – EXIT THE WHO, and the United Nations.
Malcolm Roberts has been consistently calling for Australia to withdraw from the United Nations and the WHO for many years (#AusExit). Senator Roberts latest update, as at 20th November 2023, on his campaign against the World Health Organisation’s power grab, the changes to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty is as follows:
1. There are two documents being considered
There two documents:
1) The Proposed Pandemic Treaty, now called an Agreement;
2) The changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR)
I said in May that it is likely the Agreement will be the overarching document, and the IHR will be changed to reflect the provisions in the Agreement, which in bureaucrat speak is called “harmonising”. I still think this will happen. Until a final version of the IHR changes is released we won’t know, so continuing the campaign against the IHR changes is important.
2. 2022 changes to the IHR Regulations
IHR Regulations were changed at the May 2022 meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA). These made minor changes to existing amendments, including reducing the time member states have in order to accept or reject changes from 18 months to 10 months.
These changes were reviewed in a meeting of the Australian Joint Standing Committee of Treaties (JSCOT) and approved back in August. Continuing to talk about the deadline is moot, the changes have been ratified.
JSCOT found that the changes were so minor that they did not need Parliamentary approval and advised Parliament accordingly.
Both Houses of Parliament are required to approve a report, meaning the Senate can block the adoption of a measure (through blocking the report). The Parliament however agreed these changes were so minor that separate ratification was not required.
This may be why some people are suggesting the IHR and Agreement do not require Parliamentary assent. However, any change to an existing agreement, accord, treaty, convention or protocol must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Both WHO documents MUST go firstly to JSCOT to advise on approval or rejection, then that recommendation must be passed by both houses of Parliament.
A new treaty requires a bill dedicated to the treaty (or accord, convention etc)
3. Will Australia ratify these documents?
The fact that the most nefarious of all documents, the ‘zero draft’ of the Pandemic Treaty was championed by Australia would suggest that the globalists in the ALP, LNP, Greens and Teals have every intention of passing it.
These parties have a long history of signing away Australian sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucracy.
One Nation will oppose this and any treaty that steals Australian sovereignty.
4. What’s new in the latest version of the Agreement?
The debate in the last 5 months has been around the June version of the (formerly) Accord, called CA+. This is no longer the current version. The new version is called the negotiating text and is dated 16th October 2023. Despite the date this has only just been released.
The full name is the ”Negotiating Text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, (WHO Pandemic Agreement), 16th October 2023.”
[Now for the very good news] This document is very good news
As a result of the heat the WHO has been subjected to by elected members of Parliament and from the public, academics, journalists and activists the WHO have re-written the original Pandemic Treaty to remove any suggestion of compulsion.
Congratulations to everyone who has put time and money into this campaign, however we can’t let up. Firstly, the WHO can’t be trusted, and secondly there is still one theme in this document that must be resisted.
Here is a summary of the contents of the Negotiating Text:
* The overarching human rights statement which was removed in the zero draft and returned to the CA+ is also in this draft as the very first policy statement: “Respect for human rights – The implementation of this Agreement shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
I am pleased to see the human rights statement that the WHO has always defended has been returned to this document. The wording is a complete change as well, any use of a word that suggests compulsion has been modified with a statement that member States’ sovereignty sits above WHO requests. For example, these passages around key concepts:
* Sovereignty – “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.”
* Responsibility – “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples, and effective pandemic prevention, preparedness and response requires global collective action.”
* Privacy, data protection and confidentiality – “Implementation of this Agreement shall respect the right to privacy, including as such right is established under international law, and shall be consistent with each Party’s national law and international obligations regarding confidentiality, privacy and data protection, as applicable.”
* Preparedness: “Each Party shall, in accordance with its national laws and in light of national context, develop and implement comprehensive, inclusive, multisectoral, resourced national plans and strategies for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.”
* Research – “The Parties shall, in accordance with national laws and regulatory frameworks and contexts, take steps to develop and sustain, strong, resilient, and appropriately resourced, national, regional and international research capabilities.”
* Acceptance: “The WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States … before coming into effect for a member state”
All of the wording that suggested the WHO could tell Australia what to do has been removed or modified to establish WHO directives are subject to Australian law. In short, we decide health policy in Australia, not the WHO. Of course, if those can be agreed as part of western nations working together in a positive way then that’s fine. We don’t need the WHO for that.
It also confirms that the Agreement must be approved by Australian Parliament before joining.
Further background: It was obvious from the progression between the Zero Draft and the CA+ draft that the WHO were in the weeds over assuming a directive role. Their own Review Committee recommended against having these powers, which I have spoken about several times. This is still a current document and explains why the Treaty met the same fate the IHR Amendment changes are currently meeting.
Combined with responses to this topic at Senate Estimates hearings it was clear that the Pandemic Treaty, as originally represented, had no chance of passage. My Office has been right about this the entire time.
6. One Health is still in this document
While abandoning plans to compel is a very welcome development, the United Nations One Health framework is still in this agreement. One Health was first added in the CA+ document. One Health now spreads right through Australian health care — just open a browser and put in “One Health + Australia” to see what we’re up against.
This is a strong reason to oppose the treaty and it should become a distinct talking point – One Health is global health control. This needs to be opposed.
For clarity the Agreement does not establish the powers to compel One Health. However, it is one large step towards doing this, in that it co-ordinates and normalises something which to date has been taking over health policy without any legislative approval.
I will continue to monitor developments in the WHO documents and continue to campaign for Australia to withdraw from the UN, including the WHO.
#AusEXIT now!
Website: malcolmrobertsqld.com.au
templar1066: “Where were all those human rights advocates during the Covid threats by authorities: intimidation, harassment, physical assaults, being fired upon, gassed, loss of civil liberties and constitutional rights?”
They wuz busy running High Court challenges on behalf of illegal immigrants with criminal records. First things first.
The illegal migrant crims manage to get funding and legal representation for High Court challenges while we Aussies get the rough end of the pineapple for demanding our human and constitutional rights.
Something is sht rotten in the state of Australia. WTF have we allowed our country to turn into! And how long are we going to tolerate being abused by our “representatives”?
If there were any true justice many of our treacherous, treasonous, narcissistic, megalomaniac, political slime wouldn’t be swinging clubs on golf courses, they would be swinging in prison.
templar1066
Where were all those human rights advocates during the Covid threats by authorities: intimidation, harassment, physical assaults, being fired upon, gassed, loss of civil liberties and constitutional rights?
I think you just answered your own question:
At the same place as everyone else (all ‘human rights advocates’): being intimidated, harassed, physically assaulted, being fired upon, gassed, and losing their civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Not necessarily ‘spineless wimps’ templar and I’m sure they don’t believe, nor expect the disgraceful narcissist and mass-murdering Ex-POTUS and his mythical army of ‘White Hats’ will ever appear out of thin air to come and save them from the dystopian regime and their anti-humanity genocidal agenda, which they clearly oppose. The same anti-humanity agenda which the majority of Australian sheeple continue to enable by their gleeful compliance.
Where were all those human rights advocates during the Covid threats by authorities: intimidation, harassment, physical assaults, being fired upon, gassed, loss of civil liberties and constitutional rights? No where to be seen. Spineless wimps.