This topic isn’t revolutionary. However, it’s interesting how different pieces of legislation (supposedly brought for completely different areas of life) can serve much the same purpose. Laws that seemingly have no connection to each other can end up having very similar results.
Let’s look at a few of them.
For emergency and disaster management:
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 21) signed in 1992
–Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World signed in 1994
–Hyogo Framework for Action signed, goes from 2005 to 2015
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030) signed in 2015
–Sendai Framework signed, goes from 2015 to 2030.
For public health management:
–W.H.O. Constitution signed in 1946
-W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations signed in 1951
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (First Edition) signed in 1969
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Second Edition) signed in 1995
–W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Third Edition) signed in 2005
Now, what can these things have in common? Quite simply, they are pretexts for removing rights and property from people, under the cloak of being an emergency. True, the nature of it will vary, but the results are the same.
1. Parallels Between Sendai Framework And WHO-IHR
While not identical, there are many connections and similarities between enacting emergency management laws, and the public health laws. Using B.C. as an example:
(a) Bill 31 was derived from the Sendai Framework, which itself is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. There are many aspects to this ideology
(b) The Provincial Public Health Acts are the result of the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is derived from the 3rd Edition of the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Also, the WHO’s Constitution is well worth a read, as it dates back to the 1940s.
While laws are being enacted that greatly impact the lives of Canadians, the reality is that these — and many laws — are derived from international agreements that the public has no say in.
(a) Bill 31 is framed as “disaster reduction measures”, which presumably means natural disasters. As for speculation about “climate lockdowns”, this type of legislation is laying the ground work.
(b) Provincial Health Acts are framed as “preventing communicable diseases”, and we saw plenty of that in the last few years.
And reading through both, it’s clear that both are intended — among other things — to strip away large parts of individual rights, including property rights. These things are presented as necessary for the greater good.
Additionally, both sets of laws allows near dictatorial powers when it comes to issuing orders. A Cabinet Minister could do it for the Emergency & Disaster Management Act. A Minister, or Public Health Officer, can give orders concerning regulations within the Public Health Act
2. B.C. Bill 31, Emergency & Disaster Management Act
This is still going through the Legislature, but parts of it are certainly worth looking at. They’re ripe for abuse in the wrong hands.
Clearly, the Bill is much longer than this. But what do these sections include?
- Establish price controls of “essential goods”
- Establish rationing of “essential goods”
- Require (force) people to provide certain services
- Appropriate or control someone’s private land
- Allow warrantless searches
- Prohibit people from entering their property
- Prevent travel
- Prohibit certain types of businesses
- Prohibit or restrict activities
Sound familiar? It should. These things were implemented throughout British Columbia through 2020 to 2022, but under the pretense of “disease prevention”. All that’s missing are the injection passports and the mask mandates.
3. B.C. Public Health Act (2009), Derivative Of WHO-IHR
People will no doubt remember the years of endless (and seemingly arbitrary) dictates from BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and Health Minister Adrian Dix. But what allowed them to do this?
While not identical, the B.C. Public Health Act provides many of the same restrictions that Bill 31 would (if enacted). Primarily, property and personal rights can be suspended in an open ended manner, under the excuse of an emergency.
It’s also worth mentioning the the “Public Officials” involved in issuing orders are exempt from legal liability, and cannot be sued. It’s written right into the legislation.
SENDAI FRAMEWORK, B.C. BILL 31
(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English
WHO TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(15) WHO International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition 2005