While the population’s awareness of the dangers of the planned WHO agreements is gradually increasing, politicians are still keeping a low profile despite all the criticism. Initial inquiries from fundamental rights lawyers about the threat of a weakening of sovereignty and fundamental rights were inadequately answered by the Austrian Foreign Ministry: the lawyers remain stubborn and are now considering further important questions.
Below you can read articles written by lawyers for fundamental rights:
WHO’s extension of power and public silence: another request to our politicians
WHO’s extension of power and public silence: another request to our politicians
After only a cursory response was given to our first request to the Ministry of External Affairs, we took action again. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs currently has an extensive list of questions related to WHO, the IHR, the pandemic treaty and Austria and its population. We are eagerly waiting for the reply. Here you can read what we’ve done so far, what concerns us and what we ask.
First inquiries and appeals to National Council members: restrictions on Austrian sovereignty, lack of participation and lack of information
In June we addressed our members of the National Council and ministers with an urgent request. We explained what’s happening at WHO, what our concerns are as fundamental rights-oriented lawyers – and why the whole thing worries us all. We have also shared the questionnaire on our website: WHO Pandemic Alliance: Dear National Council, what’s going on?
Along with this request we also sent an article which we had published earlier. He explains what new rules WHO and its member countries are working on and what impact these rules can have on the citizens of the member countries. The frightening conclusion: If WHO realizes the “pandemic” according to the current project status, it can single-handedly issue orders to states and citizens, it can restrict the self-determination of states, and fundamental rights for each Can ban. We can happen more easily. Read in detail here: How the WHO pandemic is disempowering parliaments and citizens from the treaty and the IHR.
We have appealed to politicians to widely inform the population as is required in a democracy and finally start a public debate about the expansion of WHO’s power, which has been consistently silenced. At best, people talk about “corona deniers” who are now suddenly at odds with WHO. In fact no journalist should be willing to make such attacks anymore if they can report that an international organization is creating new global rules, that Austria is ceding its negotiating rights to the EU, and that our Hardly any of the decision-makers say a word about it.
“Hardly any,” because at least we received one in August Reply from the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Fortunately, he dealt impartially with the pandemic treaty and the process it would have to go through to enter into force. But that was enough. Changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which are of particular concern to us, have been addressed only superficially. The fact that Austria is not negotiating itself, but rather the EU speaks for all its member states, was ignored. Whether the Austrian population should be granted any rights was not discussed.
Second request with renewed appeal and additional important questions
After this inadequate answer, we followed. In collaboration with our tireless Swiss colleague Philipp Kruse, we developed a second query that fills 14 pages. It is with the Ministry of External Affairs since October 22. We expect a reply.
You can download the questionnaire in its entirety here.
In short its most important 10 points:
- In the future, the Secretary-General of WHO should be able to decide when to declare a pandemic – Without evidence of real danger and without legal control.
What independent control and protection mechanisms will ensure that the justification for pandemic emergency legislation can be effectively scrutinized and that the pandemic situation does not persist unnecessarily for too long? - WHO’s “recommendations” should be there to fight the epidemic bond to become
What independent control and assurance mechanisms are provided in the IHR so that the necessity of the WHO guidelines and their cost/risk/benefit ratio can be promptly checked?
How does Austria ensure that unnecessary, inappropriate, unsafe or harmful WHO directives can be immediately eliminated or ignored? - WHO should be able to take action against “disinformation” in the field of epidemic prevention and control. This gives rise to the fear that it will gain a monopoly on truth. As such censorship mechanism Must be stopped.
How is WHO’s claim of infallibility compatible with our constitutional ban on censorship and our fundamental rights of freedom of expression and academic freedom? How is it guaranteed that WHO will not misuse this power? - it is No independent control or correction mechanism Which can check whether the instructions issued by WHO are sensible, appropriate and necessary and whether accidental damage can be avoided.
How is quality control guaranteed for both the past (COVID-19) and the future (checks and balances)? - There is no mechanism in the proposed changes to the IHR Protection of human dignity and fundamental rights In times of claimed pandemic. especially missing Protection from experiments on humans.
What will Austria do and what will the World Health Assembly (= all WHO member states) do? So that the guarantee of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution (freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, right to private life etc.) remains intact even during the time of pandemic? - Overall assessment: WHO appears to have no power to suspend state sovereignty and individual self-determination in core questions of self-empowerment and one’s own survival (health, private life) for any length of time – indefinitely. Has unrestricted power.
this change is coming Overall changes to the Austrian federal constitution Even. However, such changes are required in the basic principles of the constitution in Austria. Referendum and two-thirds majority in Parliament. Even “simple” constitutional amendments (no interference with fundamental principles) require a two-thirds majority. There does not appear to be any such referendum. - There is no media reporting or political discussion about how Austria, as a WHO member state, views the changes.
What position will Austria take when it comes to the decision-making process within WHO? Can anyone really imagine handing down binding decisions to WHO without a judicial legal protection system? - The role of the EU, which speaks for its member states in IHR negotiations
What competences does the EU have with respect to pandemic control and WHO as a whole? How are any decision-making mechanisms constructed in Brussels?
In this context, what place does Austria take in the EU decision-making process? - Theoretically, WHO member states can reject changes to the IHR (opt-out) and the “pandemic treaty” must first be approved in order to be valid.
Can Austria really effectively reject changes to the “Pandemic Treaty” or IHR? - Overall, in the wake of the “pandemic.” general legal protection deficit revealed. The Constitutional Court is designed neither for rapid legal protection nor for factual investigation, which raises the question whether interim legal protection should be established at the factual level, for example in the Federal Administrative Court.
Is there any consideration being given to strengthening provisional legal protection in Austria, inter alia, as a compensation for the broad powers that the WHO has over interference with fundamental rights? After being and growing in the last three years?
