Our mistake, over these centuries of reform, was that we did not go far enough. We did not take power away from institutions to rule over us. Instead, we just moved the powers around. Today, as in the days of kings, the law is based upon the authority of those who govern, not upon the consent of the governed.
Would it not have been unimaginably exhilarating if this court verdict and (hypothetical) sentence had binding power? But it does not. Hence, the struggle continues, and we shall never give up. That this is worthwhile was recently confirmed when the news broke about the World Health Organisation suffering a colossal setback, when it failed to get the amendments approved which would assure its sought-after ‘pandemic treaty’ to be ratified. There are other victories too, which we, the resistance, are pursuing, without the least thought of ever backing down.
The two sets of changes to the architecture of global health governance, I argued, will effectively change the WHO from a technical advisory organisation offering recommendations into a supranational public health authority telling governments what to do.
Personally, I blame Neil Gorsuch, the supposedly conservative originalist Justice who joined with the liberals in Bostock (he actually wrote the majority opinion) in arguing that constitutional protections for sex applied equally to gender identity. His facile logic? That it is impossible for an employer to make an adverse employment decision based on “transgender status” without thereby discriminating “because of sex”, since a man who suffers adverse treatment because he “identifies” as a woman is treated differently than he would be if he were a woman who “identifies” as a woman. Er, yes, Neil. But the point is he isn’t a woman. This point of mere biological fact was lost on such a lofty legal mind, unfortunately – and now a country of 350 million is living with the idiotic and tyrannical consequences.
Though untruthful testimony pales in comparison to the crimes of the last five years, perjury may be the most effective charge to impose accountability on the wrongdoers behind the Covid Regime.
Can Australia’s eSafety Commissioner block content globally on demand? Not today, ruled the Australian Federal Court, in a win for Elon Musk’s social media platform X. In a decision on Monday, Justice Geoffrey Kennett refused to extend a temporary injunction obtained by eSafety last month, which forced X to remove footage of the Wakeley church stabbing, an alleged religiously motivated terror attack.
Have governments realized that they have been misled by repetitive G20, WHO, and the World Bank’s messages that there would be more harmful pandemics to come and that the world urgently needs new pandemic agreements? If they return to their senses, there may still be time for them to use Article 56(5) IHR to raise disagreement with the WHO’s interpretation of Article 55(2) to the coming WHA, demanding a deferral of the vote until legal requirements are fulfilled.
EUA was the type of authorization granted to Covid mRNA vaccines, along with hundreds of other medical products used during the declared Covid pandemic. Once we understand the basic legal framework, we can investigate the most important aspect of EUA that nobody ever discusses: the context in which EUA law operates.
The lesson is to privilege fact-finding and evidence over gender, put faith in a due process-centred rule of law over mob rule, reaffirm presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and promote even-handed equality through gender-neutral (and race-, religion-, and caste-neutral) laws and procedures. In other words, justice for all before social justice for favoured protected groups.
In March 2021, the Biden White House initiated a brazenly unconstitutional censorship campaign to prevent Americans from buying politically unfavorable books from Amazon. The effort, spearheaded by White House censors including Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty, began on March 2, 2021, when Slavitt emailed Amazon demanding to speak to an executive about the site’s “high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation.”
The draft of the IHR amendments and an accompanying draft Pandemic Agreement are both still under negotiation a month short of the intended vote at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in late May. Together, they reflect a sea change in international public health over the past two decades. They aim to further centralize control of public health policy within the WHO.
To some, Inman Grant is a hero, protecting children from online abuse, ridding the internet of revenge porn, and breaking new ground in leading a globally coordinated response to the problem of online hate. To others she is an e-Karen, a Censorship Commissar with a personal vendetta against Elon Musk, cynically exploiting multiple tragedies to lead a bureaucratic power grab and censor the speech of everyday citizens, both in Australia and globally. Both may be true.
