THE Health Secretary Sajid Javid has confirmed that the Coronavirus Act will lapse on March 23, and that he ‘does not envisage ever using it again’.
Well, he won’t have to if Britain signs up to an international treaty to mandate a global response to any future pandemic currently being drafted by the World Health Organisation. This will potentially enable the WHO – or rather the people who pull its strings – to demand lockdowns, close schools and businesses and impose mask and jab mandates in every country on the planet, and nobody will be able to resist.
(As an aside, if the WHO does demand the authority to mandate jabbing, it will be in direct conflict with the 2003 UNESCO Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights which emphasised that ‘the interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society’.)
Did not Britain vote to leave the EU because we did not want our laws and our lives governed by unelected oligarchs operating from other countries? Was not the Johnson administration elected upon such a platform? Consequently, I would like reassurance, directly from our PM, that this country will not, under any circumstances, sign up to such a treaty and surrender British citizens’ human rights.
I would also like to hear Boris Johnson announce the following five initiatives:
A moratorium for at least five to ten years on any international public health treaty and national legislation until the true costs of the 2020-22 regulation – societal, personal and economic – are known. We must thoroughly assess the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of the C-19 death toll, and measure them against the patterns of other losses in our lives, both over the past two years and in the next few years.
A major investigation into how pharmaceutical companies fund research and push their products in Britain. Over the past two years it has become abundantly clear that they hold immense influence over our public health policies. They persuade, if not control, key institutions and large numbers of individual advisers and decision-makers. This is profoundly undemocratic, and ‘the stables of public health policy’ must be swept clean.
A comprehensive investigation into how this virus came into being and how it spread. If we do not, and it was contrived through ‘gain of function’ virology, there is nothing to stop the perpetrators doing it again and again. What better way to utilise the WHO’s proposed pandemic powers and jab the world?
Unbreakable commitments to a fully democratic and proportionate response to any future major public health issues, to the sanctity of individual bodily autonomy and to the general observance of ethical conduct, particularly with regard to the media.
Strict limitations on how public money can be spent on media ‘advertising’ and ‘sponsorship’. In WWII, to spread fear and panic was a crime with the most serious consequences while in 2020-22, clearly, such was a principal objective. It is clear that the MSM is still pushing narratives not news. The Ukraine conflict has received blanket coverage, whilst the despotic actions – and subsequent climb-downs – of Trudeau in Canada and Ardern in NZ have not been mentioned. Nor has the data emerging from Germany and US about the vast scale of damage done by their vaccination programmes and how Pfizer failed to disclose what happened during their testing, and tried to hide it for 70 years.
Nothing about the response to C-19 made any sense whatsoever. Many who pay close attention to news and current affairs will have views as to why governments rapidly abandoned their action plans for dealing with viral and bacterial pandemics, and warped their democratic values to squat on their citizens’ rights.
Whilst I give the Conservative government in England credit for resisting the path taken by Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford in Scotland and Wales, and for avoiding coercive methods and ugly rhetoric deployed by various federal, state and provincial governments in US, Canada and Australia, and of European nations too, it remains the case that in March 2020 the Johnson administration acted unconstitutionally and without regard to the important conventions of Cabinet Office Guidelines.
Western governments have been dictatorial and the question is why? Were they duped by globalists such as the WEF and Bill Gates? Were we gripped by corrupt forces of corporations and technocrats? Have we been at war with China all along? Or have we suffered from the incompetence of arrogance, over-management and safetyism? Whatever is the truth, an inquiry must follow, and the government must pledge never to repeat these grave errors. It certainly must not accede to any WHO plans to usurp Westminster’s capacity to legislate for this nation.
Our PM must treat us with respect from now on. He should state clearly and unequivocally whether or not his government has any plans to introduce digital ID, a digital currency and a social credit system. We have a right to know. Such crucial decisions – which were not included in any election manifesto – must be put to the voting public to receive our consent.
Ostensibly at least, our system is still based on parliamentary democracy, and so this PM, and anyone who seeks to follow him must justify their actions to the British people for approval. In great matters, the desires of unelected bodies and individuals cannot be tolerated. This is why in 2016 we threw off the chains of Brussels, and we had to fight for our democracy for over three years to assert this decision. Johnson’s premiership is almost entirely predicated upon this; worryingly, it seems that he is choosing to ignore this point.