(Expose News)—To raise awareness of what constitutes an emergency and countries’ obligations, last month World Council for Health published a ‘Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies’.
The document explains how governments used an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.
The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of International Human Rights Law and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.
Many consider COVID-19 to have been a worldwide “Trojan Horse” event that enabled human rights and freedoms to be trampled, dangerous medical interventions to be normalized, and an unprecedented transfer of wealth to take place from ordinary people to the super-rich.
There is also deep concern that this was just a trial run and that the imminent promulgation of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) “Pandemic Treaty” and amended International Health Regulations will take these tyrannical measures to an entirely different level.
The World Council for Health (“WCH”) has published a ‘Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies’ in response to these concerns.
This document explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.
The critical question that should have been addressed at the time was whether the threat posed by COVID-19 represented a public health emergency that threatened the life of the nation. The Legal Brief presents four criteria to be used to determine if a state of emergency should be declared. These criteria state that the threat should:
- be actual or imminent;
- involve the whole nation;
- place the continuation of the organized life of society at risk of extinction; and,
- be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate.
The arguments presented in this document show that the COVID-19 event never met any of these criteria. Thus, as it did not meet the legal conditions of an emergency ‘threatening the life of a nation’, all derogation measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, school and small business closures, travel restrictions, and harmful vaccine mandates, were illegal breaches of International Human Rights Law (“IHRL”).
All States have a legal obligation to enact public policy that protects, respects, and ensures fundamental human rights. Furthermore, certain norms and fundamental human rights exist that can never be violated, not even during a declared state of emergency. Instead, during the COVID era, governments around the world chose to follow the recommendations of WHO, ignore the rights of citizens, and enact oppressive public health actions. It is also of huge concern that human rights organizations failed to hold governments to account for their abuse of emergency measures.
The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of IHRL and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, these gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.
To prevent future public health emergencies resulting in similar human rights abuses, the Legal Brief therefore recommends the following actions:
- to educate the public regarding the criteria to declare a legitimate state of emergency;
- to establish panels to monitor adherence to IHRL and communicate violations; and,
- to establish activist groups to take necessary proactive legal action.
You can listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain this in the 5-minute video embedded in her Substack article. You can read the Legal Brief HERE.
At Last, a Company With Integrity in the Gold IRA Industry
For several years, I’ve been vetting out precious metals companies in search of the best. I believe in gold and silver but it’s hard to find integrity in the Gold IRA industry. The vast majority operate with shady tactics and gigantic spreads that take advantage of Americans who simply want to protect their life’s savings.
I’ve found a handful that I like and I’ve worked with some of them. By no means would I “unrecommend” them because, again, I vetted them out and found them to be above the fold. Unfortunately, it isn’t hard to be better than the rest when the rest are so darn awful.
After years of searching, I finally found a company that truly operates with integrity. Augusta Precious Metals has three important attributes that set them far above the competition:
- Non-Commissioned Sales Team: I cannot stress how important and unique this is. With just about every other company in the Gold IRA industry, the sales teams make commission from every account they open. This means they steer their clients toward the gold and silver products with the highest commission. With Augusta Precious Metals, the team is solely focused on putting the best gold and silver for their clients into their IRA. They get paid to serve the best interests of the Gold IRA client, NOT their own commission pay.
- Incredibly Low Fees: Most Americans would be shocked if they knew the spread other Gold IRA companies charge. Augusta charges just 5% versus up to 45% elsewhere.
- No Pressure, No Gimmicks: There’s an understanding among most in the Gold IRA industry that fear and pressure is the way to go. Augusta Precious Metals takes a sober approach when working with clients because they hold integrity in the highest possible regard. This is why they don’t offer gimmicks like “free” or “bonus” silver. It’s also why they do not apply pressure tactics to get quick sales. Their educational and transparent approach to doing business is exceedingly rare in the Gold IRA industry.
