Treasonous Treaty


Section 52 of the 91 sections of the U.N. Agenda 2030 global takeover plan begins, “We the Peoples’ are the celebrated opening words of the U.N. Charter. It is ‘We the Peoples’ who are embarking today on the road to 2030.”
When the U.N was founded, the endearing word “rights”—so vital to liberal democracies— was used repeatedly in its first documents. In the current lead documents, the word “rights” appears but once. Through Agenda 2030, the UN hopes to implement a global power-grab for itself over every sector of planetary life as it promises to fulfill our ‘needs’ and provide ‘sustainability’.
Western democracies sought to build a longstanding viable system based upon rationality, Biblical moral values, the need for stability, and the proper balance between local and federal concerns. They sought to learn from the mistakes of the past and believed that governing power must be shared between public & private entities. The idea of a federal monolith such as we have today in Canada and the U.S. was far from their minds, and even farther was the idea of an international monolith superseding even our current one.
The U.N today has a megalomaniac vision claiming international authority over sovereign nation-states. Section 52 reads:
“Our journey will involve Governments as well as Parliaments, the U.N. System and other international institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community—and all people.”
Business? The private sector? Indigenous people? Even decisions made by tribes in remote jungles? Local authorities? Could it be that even the placement of stop signs in 15 minute cities is on the horizon line of the U.N vision? And why bother capitalizing the words “Governments” and “Parliaments”?
This is a mere virtue signalling show of respect for the soon to be post nation-states whose authority they now hunger to usurp.
Cooperating with this vision of international governance, the Biden Administration and the Trudeau government both now plan to sign onto a treaty that will expand the authority of the World Health Organization (WHO) to surrender our domestic health policy rights. There is also the fundamental question of whether or not we can participate in such a ‘treaty’ without a constitutional amendment. In Canada, Provincial governments have jurisdiction over health, which is why the Trudeau government did not impose national lockdowns and vaccine mandates during the pandemic. They instead worked the levers of illegally restricting mobility rights of 7M unvaccinated Canadians and imposing vaccine mandates upon federally regulated employers—comprising more than 1M workers. It therefore appears clear that each of Canada’s individual Provinces would need to adopt the WHO Pandemic Treaty before it could be implemented. That said, the Trudeau government used the threat of withholding federal funding to cudgel the Provinces into imposing lockdown measures, and must be expected to employ the same Draconian measures to bully the Provinces into adoption of their globalist health agenda.
In the next to last sentence of Section 52, the writers suddenly and unaccountably make an appeal to popular support as justifying the envisioned power-grab over the world. They state, “Millions have engaged with, and will own, this Agenda.”
But is this even remotely true? Most importantly, has anyone in the world ever voted for this Agenda? How have millions been engaged? How will we own this Agenda?
This incredible rhetoric comes out of the blue and is not written elsewhere in the document. It is an injection of sophomoric fantasy—baseless, in fact, and useless in a policy paper claiming supreme global governance authority.
What if I suddenly said: “I am going to take control of the government of my city, and when I do, I will improve every lawn and garden in the city”. And when met with “but you are not elected to do this” I responded “I am not asking to be elected. I am going to take control.” Effectively, that is what Agenda 2030 says to anyone who dares object to its positions, premises, and declarations.
The final sentence of Section 52 must leave any sensible person shaking their head:
“It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people—and this, we believe, will ensure its success.”
Here, the writers obviously pilfer from Abraham Lincoln’s legendary Gettysburg Address. They liken Agenda 2030 to the existential struggle fought during the U.S. Civil War & the exalted vision upon which America and thus much of the modern West is now based. But no one has battled and died for Agenda 2030, nor would they. Or is the UN hinting that many will die unless Agenda 2030 is adopted? At the risk of appearing hyperbolic, Lincoln’s eloquent phrase is more substantive than the entirety of Agenda 2030.
Section 52 in so many ways reflects the bizarre and useless mindset behind Agenda 2030. It takes timeless phrases out of context. It shares a vision of authority and power the UN does not legitimately possess; and by its distortions and stupidity, positions Agenda 2030 as one of the most repulsive documents of all time.
In the U.K., their Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group (PRR APPG) heard how the WHO Pandemic Treaty risks handing the international advisory health body unprecedented powers to declare pandemics, lockdowns and vaccine mandates, backed by the force and violence of international law. Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and former WHO scientific and medical officer. According to Dr. Bell, this Treaty hands the WHO authority to order significant financial contributions by individual states, censorship of scientific debate, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations during a unilaterally declared public health emergency.
According to Dr. Bell, the WHO was established in 1946 with the best of intentions, to help coordinate responses to major health issues and advise governments accordingly. The ensuing decades have witnessed a sea change in direction as funding streams shifted to private “specified funding”, particularly from Uber-wealthy private donors like Bill Gates. This led to the WHO becoming a far more centralized and externally directed body in which private and corporate funders shape and direct programmes. The very definition of a health emergency has simultaneously become alarmingly broad. It is against this backdrop that the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments and the Treaty are set:
“These pandemic instruments are founded on a fallacy regarding the frequency and impact of pandemics and would, if ratified, fundamentally change the relationship between the WHO and national governments and their citizens.”
Bell particularly cites amendments to the IHR as a dangerous increase in power and authority bestowed upon just one person. The Director General would be able to proclaim real or potential emergencies on any health-related matter that they—influenced by their private and corporate funders—say is a threat. The WHO could then issue legally binding directions to member states and their citizens. Given the catastrophic harms caused by WHO policies during the Covid-19 Pandemic—which exponentially outstrip those linked to the virus itself —the potential economic and health-related harms of such power cannot be overstated. According to Bell:
“There is a vast pandemic industry waiting for these buttons to be pushed and I am in no doubt that policymakers should reject WHO’s pandemic proposals.”
Professor Garrett Wallace Brown is Chair in Global Health Policy at the University of Leeds and Director of the World Health Organization Collaborative Centre on Health Systems and Health Security. Professor Brown and his research team have been advising the WHO and others on the $31.1B per year plan for pandemic preparedness and whether it is defensible, or even feasible. According to Brown:
“The post-Covid policy environment has triggered a remarkable grab by various institutions to capture the pandemic preparedness and response agenda and its corresponding financial capacities. This raises concerns about the legitimacy of the policy processes in terms of the representativeness of the emerging pandemic preparedness agenda.”
One particular concern involves the $31.1B per year price tag, including the more than $24B per year required from low-middle income countries. The concern is whether this number is proper or even feasible. Member nations must be able to address their individual public health needs to achieve better population health and resilience. These vast sums devoted to pandemic preparedness threaten to divert vital health resources from where they are most needed. We saw what happened during the Covid-19 pandemic and there is ample evidence to conclude that this has only continued.
For example, tracking Overseas Development Aid (ODA) for health from 2019 to the present shows that vital and established preventive public health programmes have suffered globally as a result of policy shifts to Covid and post-Covid pandemic preparedness and response (PPR). Brown cites evidence showing that malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, AIDS, reproductive health and non-communicable diseases have been impacted by resource shifting. ODA saw a 34% decrease in funding for basic health and a 10% decrease for basic nutrition in developing countries. The fear is that emerging pandemic preparedness instruments will perpetuate this trend, with profound global health effects.
There is also concern about how the $31.1B number was generated and by whom. Although Brown’s research team worked on the raw data with the WHO, they were not part of the analysis, nor do they fully know how it was done. The process for determining the $31.1B number was completed in only 6-8 weeks and without consistent methods, particularly between different institutions who offered their own estimates—including the World Bank, G20, WHO, McKinsey, etc. For Brown, this raises questions about how accurate the $31.1B number is and if it truly reflects national and global PPR needs. At minimum, there is a need to better justify those numbers and to assure that we are not compounding donor fatigue by demanding astronomical amounts. To put this into context, the total operating budget for the Global Fund, responsible for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis—three of the most prevalent communicable diseases—is only about $4B per year, or one eighth of the annual sum being demanded by the WHO under the new Treaty.
$31.1B per year is a huge opportunity cost demanding proper contextualization, reflection, debate, evidence and justification. We have already seen the devastating impact of misguided pandemic preparedness. It is wise to have processes in place that help prepare for pandemic threat; but such measures must still suit the purpose. Doing that will require significant reflection, the identification of need from a wide variety of stakeholders, and properly vetted evidence. At the moment, this broader deliberation has been stunted and in Brown’s expert opinion, remains untenable.
U.K. Pandemic Response and Recovery Co-chair Esther McVey went even further, stating:
“The Treaty and IHR amendments could cement a disastrous approach to future pandemics. It seems unwise to give an unelected and largely privately-funded supranational body, power over sovereignty and individual rights with seemingly no oversight. My constituents are concerned, not least because the WHO has a poor track record when it comes to pandemics. I question whether we want to hand such authority to the WHO, whose focus in recent decades has moved away from its laudable founding principles, to blunt instruments such as lockdowns and a one-size fits all approach to public health with the terrible consequences we are now seeing.”
Her Co-chair, Graham Stringer is also opposed to these plans as they could represent a huge expansion of the WHO’s powers, to the detriment of public health. This augmented authority would surely be used to pressure countries into compliance with WHO diktats. We saw the unaccountable and extreme influence of China on the WHO when it refused to investigate the Wuhan laboratory and the origin of SARS-CoV2. Stringer also finds it worrying to see the rising commercial interests within the WHO:
“We experienced the WHO’s unscientific volte face on mask wearing, despite there being no strong evidence that they had suddenly become effective. It was an entirely political decision, much like many of the decisions taken by the UK government, often in the absence of any real parliamentary scrutiny. We appear to have learnt nothing from that experience, in terms of both the eye watering cost and the vast collateral damage, which the Treaty and amendments seem set to enshrine in the WHO’s principles. If these plans come to be, we would be handing over powers to an organization with less clinical and scientific expertise than our own.”
It may not be be clear how the WHO will enforce these powers, but we do know the potential is there; we lived through it, not just with Covid but also with Swine Flu. The ease with which unelected bureaucrats can dictate damaging public health policy and erode democracy, civil liberties and individual rights is something that cannot be reprised. This is why such plans demand robust debate, and an open review in legislatures and in public. As Sweden did during the pandemic—and is an example to the world—we must all make our own domestic decisions about who is best equipped to manage public health threats in Canada.
Most Canadians are blissfully unaware that the WHO has been working on a legally binding international treaty designed to prepare the world for the next pandemic. There has been scant media coverage or public discussion around this monumental treaty which, once ratified, would direct the public health decisions and responses of all signatory countries— including Canada. It is vital that Canadians be made aware of these global negotiations and the potential far-reaching implications for our nation.
Two years ago, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis pressed PM Trudeau on his government’s engagement with the WHO on the described controversial amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), vesting the WHO with expanded powers. Trudeau responded:
“As an active member of the WHO, Canada has always been there to push for better impacts in the way we collaborate around the world...We will continue to be active, strong participants in international fora around health while always respecting and protecting Canada’s sovereignty and choices to make the right decisions for its own citizens.”
The Trudeau government has since emphatically expressed public support for at least a partially binding treaty. Here in Canada, there has been very little public knowledge of the government’s work on this treaty or on the adoption of amendments to the IHRs, and no parliamentary debate. Lewis therefore sponsored a petition with nearly 20k signatures calling upon government to provide for Parliamentary debate and approval of any changes to the IHR & Treaty before their adoption. To date, there has still been no parliamentary review or discussion of Canada’s position or commitments to an international pandemic treaty.
There are compelling reasons why this treaty is concerning to Canadians. Chiefly, the treaty would grant the WHO legal authority to direct Canada’s future pandemic response. That would include any range of measures, from lockdowns to social distancing to specific vaccines approved and mandated for distribution in our country. The treaty will define and classify what is to be considered a pandemic, and this could consist of very broad categories. The WHO has acknowledged that “any new drafted and negotiated by governments themselves, who will take any action in line with their sovereignty.” In the working draft of the treaty, they list ‘sovereignty’ as one of a dozen principles guiding implementation. However, it remains uncertain how this principle will be respected in the context of a comprehensive accord that the INB has already concluded must be legally binding upon signatory nations, and which necessarily includes compliance measures. Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General states:
“The importance of a legally binding instrument cannot be overstated: it will be our collective legacy for future generations.”
Canada must beware singing a treaty that could surrender national sovereignty on health, even if there is intense international pressure to do so. It is non-sensical to sign onto a legally binding treaty governing future health response when we have still not had a national public inquiry into our own pandemic policies and outcomes. We cannot hope to prepare for the future until we have learned the hard won lessons taught by history.
Should the Trudeau government fail to be transparent with us as it ratifies a far-reaching expansion of WHO jurisdiction and powers, then it will undermine the democratic rights of Canadians to govern ourselves. While there has been some stakeholder consultation to date, there has been very little public awareness and engagement regarding this unprecedented treaty, and no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.
The final treaty will be presented and signed at the 77th World Health Assembly meeting in May of this year. Once adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, the final agreement requires ratification by two-thirds of WHO member states. If ratified, it will be legally binding under international law, and lay the foundation for global governance by an unelected elite.
Let us now briefly consider one test case of how such governance might be executed— literally.

Given our current government’s love affair with censorship and propaganda, I sometimes imagine future historians piecing through the shards of Western civilization to understand the reasons for its collapse. “Died suddenly” might just become the catch all epitaph for our age. Even now, the medical community continues to destroy what is left of its reputation by refusing to connect the dots between increased rates of cancer and heart disease and the global rollout of the mostly mandated pharmaceutical injections fraudulently touted as Covid cures & falsely labelled “vaccines”. Each time a 14 year old athlete dies suddenly in an arena, gymnasium, or on a playing field, the ethically compromised killers in white coats throw out all kinds of ludicrous explanations for why healthy young people are dropping dead.
It was stress! It was red meat! It was racism! Or it must have been climate change!
If is truly disturbing to see all of the people who changed their first name to “Doctor” struggle to reach the most obvious conclusion—that an experimental mRNA serum rushed to market without necessary testing or proper scrutiny might be to blame. Elementary school children with a rudimentary understanding of the Scientific Method and medical ethics would understand the potential risk of requiring healthy patients unlikely to die from COVID to be injected with experimental gene therapies. Yet, the “first, do no harm” swarm of group-thinkers, who have trouble realizing when pharmaceutical companies are using humans as lab rats for profit, jumped to and insisted that the entire global population must be injected with experimental toxins. That was the WHO.
Why experiment on anyone unless it was absolutely necessary and with informed consent? Why recklessly expand the experiment to the whole human race? Only the ‘scientific experts’ could trip over such basic precepts of medical ethics on their way to creation of a potential global catastrophe. These experts came from the WHO.
You might even think that the same medical community that unwittingly conspired with evil pharmaceutical companies to hook millions of people on OxyContin and other opioids would have been more skeptical when magical Covid elixirs were instantly developed and marketed as panaceas. Alas, the gullible only become more so. Perhaps this is why ‘climate change’ is still the globalist bogeyman haunting so many fertile imaginations around the world—including at the WHO. The unscrupulous authorities who lied about the efficacy of lockdowns, masks, and experimental vaccines would never lie about “climate change”, right?
What kind of monsters would tell the world that carbon is killing the planet if the science is suspect? Perchance the same globalist ghouls WHO used Covid as a propaganda vehicle for establishing a “Great Reset” are also interested in using climate change hysteria to declare another health emergency; one that would require us to surrender our private property, our privacy, and God-given human rights, all for the sake of survival. Would an ethically challenged scientific community work with an even less trustworthy political class to push a climate change hoax justifying erasure of individual liberties and implementation of global Marxism to save us from a phobia about hydrocarbons? WHO can say? What we can say for certain is that once governments and the WHO became the de facto funders of all academic research in the West, impartial, rigorous, and objective scientific inquiry ‘died suddenly’ too.
In the ‘died suddenly’ era, authorities like the WHO do not seek truth; they seek politically convenient ‘narratives’ entrenching power in the status quo. False experts fabricate realities to serve as intellectual prisons for weak minds. Truly astounding is that some of today’s most educated people are the very ones most susceptible to such blunt propaganda. Designer degrees now reflect not a proven capacity for critical thinking, but instead a cerebral vulnerability to rigid programming.
At some point, a critical mass of people must reject governance riddled with the kinds of misanthropes, lunatics, sadists, and liars who populate the WHO. Populations do not obey those undeserving of respect; but when respect for authority ‘dies suddenly’, ossified orders cannot survive, and so new ones must be constructed. I fear this to be the true & malevolent purpose of the WHO Pandemic Treaty.

Share this article